Attack on drivers by two green left wing groups in one week. Coincidence?

Sustrans, as its not too imaginative name implies is all about sustainable transport. To you and me that means back to the horse and bullock and Oh yes and of course manpower transport.

What these greeny left anti people people, oh yes yet another charity, can't accept is that, from the time we took to the horse, camel, bullocks, many thousands of years ago, we ceased to rely on running and walking to expand and thrive. The pedal cycle is only a very recent idea and for a short time in the last century, did allow some independent, although very confined and limited, transport options for those who couldn't afford their pony and trap or a motor car. Those days are long gone and because cycling really isn't a viable option to most, most simply don't do it and all who do are still, directly or indirectly, dependent on drivers and their motor cars.

No surprise that Sustrans managed to dig up 5% of only 470 parents to say this week that their child had been hit by a vehicle, 18% had experienced vehicles not stopping at crossings and 13% that their child was 'nearly hit by a speeding car' See it here.

So according to Sustrans, we are to conclude that about one million kiddies have been hit by a vehicle? About 3.6 million have experienced failures to stop at crossings? Bearing in mind that is totally subjective and without accidents to back them up and get this, about 3.2 million were 'nearly hit by a speeding car'. How subjective is that? 'Nearly'? 'Speeding'? 

After 300 billion driver miles in 2012, with kiddies being encouraged to mix and mingle with big machinery by people like Sustrans, only 33 were killed whilst walking or cycling. Yes '1 is 1 too many' we know but we don't know the cause of these accidents for starters and the anti car brigade, like Sustrans, ignore that since motor vehicles keep all of us alive, including about 20 million kiddies 33 must be read in that context. The only way Sustrans can shock is to misuse these tragic deaths, link them together as if a classroom of kiddies, like Dunblane or Aberfan for example and then postulate the shock as if it were. 'if a whole classroom of children had been killed under other circumstances there would be public outcry,' they say.. How low can the anti car lobby get? 

Hot on the heels of that blatant dishonesty comes a left wing green think tank, titling itself Institute for Public Policy Research, (IPPR)

and a very costly anti driver report written by a lawyer not a scientist basically explaining why we must get out of our cars and be taxed more if we don't. IPPR boast a staff of 40 and yes, yet another green anti people people pro windmill charity too. See the full report here

Again lots about how unhealthy vehicles are and indeed so much science for a lawyer too. He cites people like Professor Steven Glaister a professor of RACF who said in one report 'There's more young people killed on roads than by hanging themselves or being murdered' Yes right prof we certainly hope so.  An example of Steven here.

But just like Sustrans, the report fails to mention that life expectancy is going up not down and without drivers and their cars, our society collapses big time and nearly all of us would die. Not healthy at all. It fails to mention that, after three hundred billion driver miles a year, there's more death from accidents in the home than from any cause on the roads. It claims that man is responsible for climate change when he isn't and exaggerates UK's transport contribution to global man made Co2 which is actually only about 0.6% of all man made Co2. It blames drivers for pot holes too. This wasn't from 'wear and tear'. It was local officials following the global warming mantra and laying cheap Mediterranean roads which retain moisture so that any deep freeze expands the water and breaks up the roads. Our roads didn't use to collapse in big freezes. How rich then for the greens to try to blame drivers for their policies.

Congestion? Yes that's the drivers fault too. Of course it's nothing to do with ideological anti driver policy of bus lanes, turn only lanes, lengthened traffic light phases, and worst of all, closing off legitimate alternative routes and funneling traffic to the same choke points then? 

Obesity? Yes that's driving's fault too. Nothing to do with diets and computer games and TV and no after school activity. This report believes that tipping kids out of cars and onto the roads is a safe healthy idea. There are other much safer ways of being healthy and getting exercise. 

But since it is drivers, at great personal cost as the report acknowledges, keeps our society running, so what if, having done all that, a driver doesn't walk to his local shop? Don't let's feel guilty about using our cars; we are paying too dearly for it already. 

It really beggars belief that we are allowing all these non expert anti driver green charities to exist. Who paid for this anti driver nonsense? Why, the drivers of course.  

But what is sinister about this left wing green report is that it recommends its changes are handed to local authorities instead of central government. Divide and rule you see. 'And we must not allow any referendums on this' it says too. Oh and surveys must be rigged to get the right answers. And it goes on to state that then, anyone opposing it, 'can validly be accused of wilful fiscal irresponsibility..'  Just like 'Climate change deniers'

Wake up UK's drivers. Expose this crowd and the profiteers who feed from them. See road safety fat cats here

'Thanks also to a number of civil servants from across the government who engaged with me over the course of the project.' 
Says the author. May we inquire who these civil servants are?