The truth is offensive to some on the road.

'But for the record, my statement is: 'There are only two types of road user that the community cannot manage without; walking and driving'.  The Spandex Taliban continue to pretend, in their childish manner of poking fun, that it translates somehow to 'Every car journey is essential'.'

'My colleagues and I support cycling and horse riding in their essential road transport needs.'

I must, for the sake of not having to repeat and regurgitate the same points on social media, address a couple of glaring road safety issues here on this blog so that, in future, for those with the sad disability of not being able to understand simple statements of truth, direct them to it thus saving me valuable time.

I am a cyclist. Not of the Spandex and Lycra clad, racing style al la Wiggins variety but more akin to the nice sedate upright style favoured in Europe and indeed towns like Oxford and Cambridge too.

In response to the demands of the cycling lobby, I have been looking at road cycling and for those interested, we have a whole section on the Drivers' Union Website under road safety, at Drivers' Union There you will be able to see how in peril road cyclists are as the crashes, injuries and deaths of top cyclists prove as do the sad examples of ordinary road cyclist casualties too. All this is not my opinion but factual events from which intelligent conclusions must be drawn.

The epithet: 'There is no fury like that of a woman scorned' is not true because the fury, insults, venom and bile directed at me, for merely looking at cycling safety on a pro driver basis, supports the proposition that anyone prepared to don Lycra and Spandex to ride their bike, especially head cam mounted too, can safely be added to 'the woman' in the epithet.

When we have such cycling luminaries as Carlton Reid, Clive Andrews and Barry Sheerman MP as well as the followers of at least three dishonest anti Keith Peat parody social accounts, then clearly Spandex/Lycra cyclists are a very touchy breed prone to dishonesty and personal abuse to protect their peculiar ideas.

Likewise there is the Horsey Set. Strangely having so much in common with the Cycling Crowd, in that both think they have unfettered right, well fettered in the case of a horse, to obstruct and slow other road users to the extent that, if drivers dare to be human and fail to live up to either group's expectations whilst passing, they can expect a reaction ranging from scorn to outright abuse and confrontation. See. Horses on public roads  The head cams are there specifically to catch drivers doing something wrong and to film any confrontation incited just for the camera. I advise all drivers to mount CCTV on their cars for their own protection.

But let's get my position on the record for once and for all.

I support horse riders by fighting for what they need most; their cars, 4 x4s, their horse boxes and to ensure that, this vital aspect of their lives, is better than it has been hitherto, with more justice for drivers, better road safety and less cost.  Let's face it, you can't keep horses without motors and driving and indeed you can't sustain your lifestyle without all that either. Given the choice: 'Horses or motor vehicles? You would have to give up the horses. So my colleagues and I are working for one of the most important and crucial aspects of your lifestyle that allows you to have and use horses.

But does society need these animals out on roads anymore? No it doesn't. So, from a drivers perspective, horses are an unnecessary hazard, liability, delay and bad news. Sorry but that is a truth and a fact. Drivers are entitled to wonder why they are having this liability imposed on them for the gratification and enjoyment of a privileged few and it's my job to ask the question without being ridiculed for doing so. The questions I asked here need to be answered for the sake of all driver safety and wellbeing. 'Why are horses still being ridden or driven on UKs roads in 2014?' is a good question and so far there hasn't been one single rational justification in response.

Likewise I support cyclists too in that every cyclist depends on drivers directly or indirectly and most depend on their own driving too. I am doing a service for cyclists in the more important aspect of their lives, motor transport.

Rather like horses, how on earth can cyclists be a boon to drivers? From a driver's perspective, they are a hazard, liability and an obstruction to best progress. That's a reality. But in making all the demands that cyclists are, our politicians would be failing in their duty not to include in their consideration, 'Who must we have on the road to sustain society?'  After all it is the cyclists who are saying how dangerous cycling is, demanding and getting valuable road space and public funds to make it safer so the question 'do we need them?' surely is a fair one isn't it? Or isn't anyone supposed to ask reasonable questions without being abused? From the violent reactions to it, the Cycle Lobby think not. Well I am asking it and trying to get more drivers to ask it for their own good too.

But for the record, my statement is: 'There are only two types of road user that the community cannot manage without; walking and driving'.  The Spandex Taliban continue to pretend, in their childish manner of poking fun, that it translates somehow to 'Every car journey is essential'. That dishonesty I can conclude is an admission that they cannot deny the real statement.

But I will go a bit further by addressing a typical example: 'Driving to the golf club is not essential road use' Yes it is. You cannot transport golf clubs on foot far enough or fast enough without motor transport. This keeps the golfing industry going. Why not say 'driving to the stables to muck the horse out and hitch the trailer for hay is taboo too?' Holidays? Packing a car up with wife & kids plus luggage and bikes to go to France can hardly be done on a bike but it keeps the ferry trade and holiday resorts in business too. But the essence of the use is that being on the road is always to go from A to B for a purpose; it's not for being on the road just for being on the road's sake and to imperiously expect your preference, to dictate your speeds to other road users.  It is very worrying that The Cycle Lobby are either too dumb to comprehend this or too dishonest. Either way, should politicians be taking so much notice of them or their demands?

It's about time the Cycle Lobby were give short shrift. 'Like it or get off your bikes.'



 

Why drivers shouldn't go to SpecSavers?

Subject: Re: BRAKE get their name associated with many things

They are held in 'high esteem' by profiteers, in this case the spectacle manufacturers, because they provide these companies the PR to make money, not just from the drivers but to the cost of the community too. The companies in turn support Brake in a vicious money go round. See here

The fact is that there's more death from home accidents, so why no eyesight testing for that?
 
 Look sharp: eyesight and at work drivers. Date: Tuesday 24 January 2012 Venue: Bristol, UK

Brief Description:This workshop is kindly being sponsored by Specsavers. Addressing the risk of poor driver eyesight is a 
crucial aspect of fleet safety policy and procedure. In this workshop delegates will hear from experts on the risks associated with driving and poor eyesight, nd effective strategies to combat this risk such as comprehensive driver eyesight testing. A best practice case study will demonstrate how a company successfully implemented measures to tackle poor driver eyesight. £80 +VAT for Brake subscribers, £90 +VAT for non-subscribers.

To book onto this event click here, or contact Brake on 01484 559909 or admin@brake.org.uk.

Who should attend:This is an essential event for anyone within the fleet industry.Cost and deadline for booking: Please see website for details Organisers: BrakeEvent
website: www.roadsafetyforum.org/events/index.aspx  


We know that Brake are ideologically anti driver. 'Get drivers from their cars' they say. They have no expertise in road safety or prosecution yet support the prosecution of thousands of perfectly safe drivers and the profiteering from 'speeding'. Companies like Specsavers use Brake to increase their turn-overs as more drivers being compulsory tested and buying spectacles bring in more business. So in one big money go round Brake then are supported financially for their service.

I am all for drivers being able to see well. But who will pay for all these tests and spectacles? Brake? Specsavers? No. The drivers and the community will have to foot the bill. So why?

After 300 billion driver miles a year there's less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home, five times less than from NHS failings and mistakes and thirty seven times less than from smoking. So if this were really about community safety and lives why not compulsory eyesight tests for being......at home? Or smoking fags?  

But whilst are supporting Brake, I think drivers shouldn't go to them at all. As it happens, I got my last specs direct on line. It was so easy and much cheaper too.

The planned seminar below, probably to be sponsored by Honda, Toyota or some electric vehicle maker, shows how Brake, are really Eco warriors. And again all this will cost drivers a fortune too.


 Eco-driving:  planning and implementing effective procedures 

Date: 23 September  2014Venue: online webinarBrief

Description:This webinar will provide expert advice on how to plan your eco-driving campaign, implement it effectively and 
measure and report the benefits.

Who should attend:Fleet and HR managers, from  all organisations.

Cost and deadline for booking: Please see website for detailsOrganisers: Brake, the road safety charityEvent
website: www.brake.org.uk/events/11-whats-happening/conferences-training-awards/1096-eco-driving-webinar-planning-and-implementing-effective-proce

Safe clearance to pass cyclists.

There is clearly much confusion over what is the correct clearance for drivers to safely pass cyclists. The Highway Code vaguely talks about giving them as much space as if passing another car, yet cycling groups demand anything from three feet to infinity. 

Clearly what is wrong with the Highway Code rule is that the clearance that drivers will pass cars at will not only vary from driver to driver but also depend on the speed of the car being passed and the speed of the overtake. So in bumper to bumper slow moving traffic, or multiple lanes, under this rule, nobody could ever pass slower vehicles. The fact is that, at slow speeds, drivers pass cars with only a few inches of clearance. So rule 163 is totally subjective and meaningless. Just from their picture, we can see that to pass a car, or worse an HGV or PSV, on that road, would be with a far less clearance than shown here for the cyclist.

The problem with measurements, whether three feet or sixty feet, drivers don't use tape measures and nor do cyclists for that matter so that too, although a matter of fact, cannot be measured during a drive and thus too is rather meaningless.

We must first accept that the clearance given by drivers will be entirely their judgement call and if effected without collision or causing a cyclist to fall off, it will corroborate that the driver's judgement was correct; no matter how perceived from the cyclist's perspective. Cyclists may claim what they like but the outcome justifies the means.

But there must be a solution to this knotty question and since it does cause so much animosity, I have applied my thoughts to the matter. Given that the rules so far make no sense, then here is a brand new rule which will work because it is so obvious: Leave as much clearance when passing a cyclist that it is physically impossible or unlikely for the cyclist to deviate to the extent that a collision can result without it being the cyclist's fault. After all, that is the object isn't it?

But what is a safe distance for cyclists to pass other road users and vehicles? Most dooring accidents only happen because a cyclist passed too close to a stationary vehicle for their own safety for example. And fast silent cyclist passing too close to other cyclists can cause them to react suddenly too. Why is it that cyclists only want to impose rules on others but not accept them for themselves?

But why not add a sub-paragraph? Cyclists should not obstruct faster traffic over long distances and stop if necessary to assist it to pass. Cyclists should stay single file, not allowed to pass other cyclists or more than a set number of parked cars without having to get off and walk.

After all, anything else would be imposing one's speed on others and inconsiderate too wouldn't it?  

Maybe we're asking the wrong questions first. Let's first discuss why we must have cyclists on the road at all now. 

I now await the fury of the ardent cycle lobby, who always seem to detest logic, with a sad expectancy.

Cyclists luv head camming drivers but hate their own medicine.

 In response to the cycle lobby's penchant for videoing drivers in case they do something wrong and then posting every sort of driver error and failing, I have lately been inclined to download instances from my own CCTV of poor cycling.

 

Now let's be clear. I do not go out to look for poor cycling. My CCTV is for my own protection because we now have subjective Fixed Penalty for careless driving and I advise all drivers to use them for their own protection likewise. But when I see examples of inconsiderate cyclists using their bodies and bikes to dominate and bully car drivers and riding badly I reserve the right to put it on our website.

 

The reaction of the ardent cycling buffs is absolutely predictable, nasty & typical of their group. Confined to ignoring the actual events recorded and published, they mostly attack my driving as they perceive it.  

 

It is the driver's judgement call as to what is a safe passing clearance and if effected without collision, is corroboration of the driver's judgement and skill. That no drivers collided with the cyclists in my videos is a testament to their patience and good driving skill and not as the cycling deniers would have it. See the videos here

 

It's about time drivers were credited with their patience and care in dealing with cyclists and since cyclists do hamper and delay drivers, as well as facing drivers with a very profound legal liability too, it is hardly surprising when drivers do not perceive cycling in a positive light.   

The speeding lie applied.

Click here to see how officials must tell the speeding lie to keep their cameras clicking and the money rolling in.

'Statistics says something bad's happened on London's roads.' You think?

Oh my. According to Road CC, someone called the Royal Statistics Society has come up with figures that show that 'London's Roads have become more dangerous'. See the story.

Really? What, apart from potholes, has changed on London roads exactly?

It has nothing to do with the 'massive increase' in London cycle commuting that the cycle lobby have been crowing about since 2012 then?

When will the Cycling Lobby become realistic and responsible and acknowledge that the more people who mix and mingle with large essential infrastructure, the more casualties there will be? It's a no brainer really.

Who's paying Rod King MBE & 20s Plenty?

Hi Mr King,

 

As you know I am very opposed to your campaign. I am a totally voluntary worker for genuine road safety. I receive no income whatsoever and indeed cover all the costs.

 

I note, in contrast, that you are supported by donations. Indeed to the extent that you can accept credit card payment too.

 

Speed camera manufacturers make a lot of money from bogus road safety, as do the companies that run the Speed Awareness Courses too, so yes, there is a lot of pious profiteering from bad speed limiting and the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers too. I am so sorry that the Queen has been talked into awarding you an MBE with those background circumstances and indeed that you wouldn’t ensure no profiteering from your efforts no matter how well intentioned they may be before embarking on them. That there is vast profit from it, tends to undermine your efforts a great deal.

 

But since you too seem to be remunerated, albeit via donation, then I think that such a public campaign should be willing to open up its books for public interest purposes. What has been your total donations? Who has donated over £100? What registered charities have donated? How much have you paid yourself over the last year and in total, since the association was formed.

 

That you have no formal CV or background in road safety, dealing with accidents, driving or prosecution, is yet another worry when you seem to be rewarded for your involvement in such a life and death issue. I find this very serious and will make my feelings known to the respective offices who arrange these things.

 

Of course you need not answer these questions, but that I have asked you, will be put into the public domain where readers may form their own conclusions from no response. 

 

Wishes

 

Keith Peat

Drivers’ Union

So far, Mr King's only concern was the photo we used as it was (Copy righted) Ok so we've changed it.  It seems he is more interested in his image than actually in good road safety. In fact he's more interested in following a dangerous anti road safety, anti driver, imaginary dog on twitter too. Do read about The Dog and what other luminaries of the Road Safety Money Go Round patronise it on our site at: www.youdrive.co