The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Saturday, 31 January 2015

No. What costs lives Richard is amateurs and profiteers!

I must confess that Richard Madeley has never impressed me much but I have always been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until now. The Jury is back. Having exposed himself to the corrupt speed awareness course system of dubious legality - if you are reading this Richard See here & Here - He now is an expert driver and the font of all knowledge of road safety. And in road safety a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In fact when someone like Richard uses his column to parrot false and selective statements people will die. Why? Because the Speeding Industry deflects from real accident causes and in so doing, actually kills more people.

Richard you're a journalist who happens to have been brainwashed by a profitable industry that told you fibs and didn't tell you the truth. As in religion, it is always the converts who are the worst, so it is with Richard Madeley but unlike religion this is about life and death. 

You have now used your column to bamboozle your whole readership on an issue for which you have no CV at all and based on what exactly? A sales pitch whereby two firms providing these courses in Wales alone, are managing to get through 6000 a month of them, earning them £300,000 a month? No vested interest to brainwash you there then Richard? Part of your instructor's CV is 'I'm in it for the money' and another part is 'If I told the truth, I would be out of a job'. I bet he or she wasn't even an expert driver either.

Do you really think these profiteers want 'speeding' to stop so that they can fold up their firms, all look for other jobs to do? Of course not. So we now have a system that must have 'speeders' to continue. So there's no incentive to correct high volume enticement sites then.  
Richard confirms what we all know. 'I suppose I hadn't seen the signs but that's no excuse' Yes it is Richard. But you won't know about speed enticement sites. & Why speeding happens 

Did you enquire how many other accidental speeders were caught there? When a site generates lots of speeders without attending accidents Richard, it implies a site fault, possibly an inappropriate speed limit.

If these were accidents, would the police just keep snapping them or find out why it's happening and correct it? So why is your prosecution and that of many others, just allowed to continue if it's not just about the money? 

Clearly such sites are a failure if the object is to slow drivers down anyway isn't it? I assume you were driving safely Richard? If so then you prove my point. 

You are a smart bloke aren't you Richard so why are you not like me asking pertinent questions about all this? You see for this to be justified, all speeding must be considered deliberate disobedience. Was yours? If not, then it is definitely a site issue then. 

You then regurgitate the ministry of guesswork numbers fed to you as if a fact. 'Hit a pedestrian at 20 MPH yada yada Hit one at 30MPH yada yada.....' This is all theory and modelling and not fact. There would have had to have been many collisions at exactly 20 & exactly 30 to be able to say that, and measuring isn't that precise; so they're made up numbers Richard and you have cited them as fact. 

Of course the slower everything goes the less damage is done, the classic 6th former's simplistic rhetoric, but when you over-slow major infrastructure many die from the knock on economic effect of about £3 billion per each one mile per hour too slow. Using this argument let's bring out the man with the red flag again. Or better yet have zero speed so all of us die from lack of basics Richard!  

So now, given that your offence was just 'speeding', what didn't the course tell you about it?

  • Even the law-there's no such thing as causing death by 'speeding' Richard-acknowledges that 'speeding' causes nothing?
  • Accidents, as in the ones you cited, if not caused by other reasons were caused by driving too fast, at any speed and are mostly below the limits. This 'parade of horrors' as you call them had certainly not been caused by 'speeding'? Don't believe me? Check them out.  
  • The camera, that got you onto this money making scam, cannot see one single accident cause?
  • Who set the speed limit that got you there and how do you know it is appropriate? Had you asked your instructor that question he couldn't tell you. So they point their camera but don't know why? Here Richard there's loads more on speed limits  you weren't told too. 
So are you a man to confess to your readers that you really didn't know your subject and were simply parroting the words of profiteers? Well you were you know. 

We depend on people like you to expose and condemn corruption and unfair profiteering not applaud and commend it.

What cost's lives is well meaning amateurs parroting profiteers Richard.

Now we have another journalist,
Julie Cush of BBC Newcastle doing it. See it here. And most of the flannel spoken by this vested interest wage earner had not a thing to do with not complying to an arbitrary number on a pole did it Julie? We depend on journalists to spot these things and challenge them. 

Friday, 30 January 2015

Video Vigilantes must put their money where their mouth is.

Study this head cam vigilante video From the Walthamstow Guardian. The cyclist correctly acknowledges that there is a major fault at the Whipps Cross roundabout.

Now yes the motorist was wrong. He or she should've given way to all traffic from the right. But drivers are human and make mistakes. Added to which, there is also this known effect on drivers' eyes and brain known to top gun flyers. See what an RAF pilot can teach us. 

However, like drivers who gesticulate, blow horns and flash their lights, this cyclist shows that by not stopping when he looked at the danger but instead cycled on, blowing his horn, shouting and gesticulating he never was in any real danger.

He has acknowledged the dangers of this one way system to the press and yet, his right to still expose himself to it, is paramount to his own personal safety it seems.

Now I am totally against this type of vigilantism being processed by our hard worked police and so I have written to them to point out the weaknesses in this case, already spoiled by the cyclist making them public via the Press and his own reported comments. See previous posts on this.

In fairness to the driver, I have asked that my observations are passed on to them.

But if the police are to process every piece of video grievance on the road, don't let's be selective and only proceed with cyclist's submissions, let's process all types of video. Then we would have even less police available for other matters.

So these vigilantes must be told to instigate their own summonses and not use our police to wage their nasty little war on drivers.

If anyone knows this driver, please do pass this onto them.

Since posting this, the police are now proceeding against the driver. See here. I write to the Walthamstow Guardian:

20/2/15 Hi, 
I wrote to the Met Police regarding the video cyclist evidence with a view to my comments as an ex police class 1 driver being passed to the driver of the car. They denied knowledge of this incident. Your report now indicates that the driver is to be coerced into an expensive course. I have no doubt that my observations would assist her decision See

Why were they not passed on? 


Monday, 26 January 2015

Sunday Express fall for 'mind-boggling' numbers.


In this Sunday Express article,
 based on CTC charity funded propaganda produced by keen university cyclists commissioned to produce what CTC wanted, there are extraordinary claims being made about what gains we could have from road cycling. So extraordinary that even the author calls them 'mind boggling'  So 'mindboggling' are the figures in fact we can forget all about fracking and alternative power. How can any objective authority pay heed to anything CTC say? Here they are asking for more driver jail.
Don't our editors care about facts and truth? Are the greens running our papers as well as our politicians now? 

It's not just the Express but The Times is working hard against the interests of 99% of the population, so I imagine 99% of its readership too. See here. So why?

Don't tell me the Great & The Good are trying to reduce lower mortals to standards that they would not wish on themselves and in doing so, will leave themselves with more of the cake? 'Get em back on bikes and make em know their place in the scheme of things' It's very difficult to find any rational reason for media, politicians, and celebrities to be keen to impose such discomfort and suffering on lesser mortals by taking us back sixty years or so isn't it?   What next? Driverless cars for the aristocrats whilst the Proles go back to dark ages of walking and cycling? See Driverless cars not for all of us. 

I have written to The Sunday Express as follows: Hi Express,

We need the truth on our roads:

I find it very worrying that you have published as a fact the conclusions of a report commissioned by a pro cycling group and written by keen cyclists, which include incredible claims based totally on specious research and selective imagination. Do see this item on the subject

Are they serious? Getting people to cycle will net £248,000,000,000 by 2050? Didn't any alarm bells ring at your paper before this was published? When you study this report, apart from the imaginative and selective accident savings, it is based on bicycling making up 25% of UK journeys. That would amount to an incredible 75 billion miles a year. In fact the report claims that cyclists are doing 6,000,000,000 miles a year already.

Nearly all rural cycling isn't essential but simply fun hobby riding, whilst only in our university cities and commuting cities are cyclists riding to actually be somewhere. Just drive around the country to see how cycle-less we actually are. The same can be said about Europe too.

Over 99% of the UK's population don't cycle, have no wish to cycle and none depend on anyone cycling either. Our society isn't run on push bikes. That is because, cycling as a transport mode, simply isn't viable, is uncomfortable, hard work and often wet and cold too. One needs to be healthy and fit to do it and it really is silly to reverse that truth to where one would be fitter and healthier by doing it instead; you have to be fit and healthy to start doing it. This addresses the biggest flaw in the projected fiscal savings and benefits to the community by more people cycling. There are much better and safer ways to stay fit, whilst our current obesity problems don't stem from travel mode, cars have been around much longer than our obesity era, and is more to do with computers, the Internet, game machines, fast food and lack of outside sporting facilities. So the projected savings by getting people to cycle are based on a selective untruth too.

In the call for more walking and cycling I am not clear of the connection between the two.

Without walkers we would all die and without cyclists no-one would notice very much. To deny that would be unrealistic.

Walkers have more in common with drivers since both depend on each other but no-one depends on cycling. In any case I can think of nothing more that walkers require other than their dedicated footways and pedestrian precincts so this appears to be nothing more than a claim for massive funding for cycling, a group that nobody needs.

Ref: UK cycling death. 2015
        Top Cyclists Prove It.
We challenge BMA
Euro cycling myth


Saturday, 24 January 2015

Birmingham MP needs Birmingham drivers to vote him out.

Drivers see Richard Burden's nonsense here.

The old stunt. Use walkers to justify expense on road cycling. 

I have written to him thus: 

Dear Mr Burden,

In your call for more walking and cycling I am not clear of the connection between the two.

Without walkers we would all die and without cyclists no-one would notice very much. To deny that would be unrealistic.

Walkers have more in common with drivers since both depend on each other but not cycling.

Since mankind took to the horse, camel, and bullock, society grew and expanded. We moved on via chariots, wagons, coaches, traps, carts, and carriages to the present day successors the motor vehicle in all its forms. Society wasn't  built on man powered transport at all. Now for all purposes and certainly since the fifties, horses and bicycles on roads are obsolete.

Roads, like railways and runways are essential infrastructure yet we don't allow the unnecessary mingling and mixing of humans and animals on railways and runways do we?

The definition of road cycling is, for a human on two skinny wheels and a slender frame, to mix, mingle, obstruct and compete with large essential fast moving machines, operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. Do you accept that is an accurate definition? If so then you will realise that, if it were not cycling, such risk wouldn't be tolerated. Just take UK's 2015's fatal figures - already 13 at 24th January- then countless injuries too.

And the fact is that, unlike drivers and walkers, society doesn't need cycling at all; it's merely the choice of a minority who all depend on motor transport 

 One could argue that because of driven transport, life expectancy has gone up and not down, it's hardly evidence of it being 'unhealthy'. Whereas these cycling deaths and injuries tend to show that cycling is very unhealthy indeed.

Are you an MP who thinks that we must force our population to walk and cycle more if they don't want to or simply don't have the time to? If cycling was fit for purpose and a viable transport mode perhaps more of the 99% of sixty million who don't do it would have been doing it already. The fact is that it is uncomfortable, hard work made worse by cold, wind and rain so there are far better safer ways to get exercise than from road cycling. Can you really explain why all these people must support and pay for an activity they do not do or do not need?

I am pretty certain that those who want to walk, more than they already do, can do so without any extra dedicated paths so this really isn't about walking at all but cycling isn't it?

I note that you are a member of the All Party Justice on Our Roads Group. In that case, perhaps you may demand a much fairer burden of evidence to jail drivers for long periods at least to the same standards of evidence required against criminals like robbers, assailants and murderers. 

In the meantime, I will keep drivers informed of your priorities for their work in keeping the UK in business.


See anti driver politicians: Here

Cyclists to sue over tramlines.

Has anyone else noticed yet that all the experts cited in such reports are keen cyclists? They certainly were in this CTC sponsored report.

Ignoring the irony that trams are all part of the anti driver Sustrans greeny mix but why do we have to have road cyclists at all? 

Surely a major contributing factor to a cyclist crashing on tramlines is riding on two flimsy wheels with a high centre of gravity. No one is forced to do that..

A simple and cheap solution for the council is to advise cyclists to avoid tram routes altogether and erect signs to warn them of the danger too. 'Cycle along tram lines at your own risk'

Ratepayers need councils to stand up to cyclist's and fight these claims on the basis of what is a self imposed risk.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Another piece of profiteering road safety kit

Read aboutJaguar's new and expensive gadget.

How many times must I point out that after 300 billion driver miles a year, there's less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home? Or, so far as cyclists are concerned, the obvious query, why must we have them if there is such a big problem with them? A fair question given the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money being spent on it and given that already 13  have died in 2015 on our roads too.

So this gadget. How much will it cost us? How soon before it's made compulsory? And dare I ask, if Jaguar are so public spirited, why not fit it free of charge or at least at cost?

Don't give up your day job, but more importantly don't just allow another piece of road safety profiteering be forced on drivers either. 

Cycle & anti driver lobby write to The Times.

Get Britain Cycling Plan read their nonsense here. 

CTC have joined up with the usual anti driver suspects to write to The Times.

Of course their claims don't stack up anywhere. 

Again the old chestnut of cycling being healthy and motor transport is the main reason for obesity is in the fore to pretend that more cycling would save the country billions from accidents and health costs.

Surely The Times knows that obesity is more about diet, play stations, no playing fields, less playing outdoors and so on. But there are more efficient and safer ways to get exercise than placing oneself in great danger whilst an impediment and liability to vital infrastructure too.

In any case, without motor transport, society would collapse with the consequential death of most of us from lack of basic essentials. So one can argue that motor transport has been very healthy for all of society. 

As UK drivers cover some 300 billion driver miles a year, I doubt that cyclists, including the long distance enthusiasts who are invariably cycling as hobbyists, are covering 2% of that, some 6 billion miles a year as is being claimed. To suggest that by 2050, as this group is doing, that we can increase that to 25%, some 75 billion miles cycled a year is beyond any credibility. Therefore their projected economic savings, even before any examination of their rationale, is bound to be no more than speculative and without sound foundation.

I can well understand why cyclists find it advantageous to associate with walkers. However the main difference of walkers from cyclists is that, without the former, all of us would die but without cyclists we would continue to live quite well. Another difference is that walkers do not generally mix and mingle with mechanised essential infrastructure and already enjoy their own separated facilities that have worked very well for hundreds of years. Walkers have more in common with motor transport as, without it, our society would collapse too; both need each other. 

That only a tiny percentage of our population has any interest in road cycling makes perfect sense. As a transport mode, except around flat towns and cities, it really isn't fit for purpose. It's uncomfortable, hard work, exposed to weather, cannot carry any loads or passengers over a long distance very rapidly, and given that, to date, thirteen cyclists have been killed on our roads this year already (20th Jan), it's clearly a very dangerous yet demonstrably unnecessary activity in the 21st Century. That so many don't cycle, is surely evidence then that there must be something very wrong with it. If it were viable as a transport mode far more people would be doing it already.

The question we must ask of these minority lobbyists is: 'Why should we spend large sums of money on something society can quite happily live without?'

Sunday, 18 January 2015

How the Warmists and No Warmists can both be correct.

So NASA tells us that 2014 was the warmest year in 134 years, but no-one is denying that the planet hasn't warmed for some 18 years too so how can both statements be correct?

Well here is how both can be true.

Saturday, 17 January 2015

Drugs the latest excuse for profiteering.

Ahead of the new prescription drugs driving laws coming in 2nd March 2015 See new drug drive kit coming.

But after 300 billion driver miles a year in the UK, there's less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home. 30,000 die each year alone from thirst in hospital. See here.

So this lowering of the bar on drivers, is more profiteering from a non issue. Do these kit makers and sellers do it for cost or for profit?

The figures for death by drink or drug driving are specious too. It may well be that a driver had been drinking or had taken drugs before driving but whether that caused an accident is an entirely different conclusion. Clearly this reporter hadn't researched how these figures were arrived at or has just parroted them  like the vested interest want him to do?

Friday, 16 January 2015

Classic Guardian cycling nonsense.

I have addressed a dishonest four of his 8 responses. 

1. So you don't pay registration to ride a bike on the road then. And you don't pay £50 billion in driver taxes to cycle. If you drive, you pay it only as a driver to drive.

2 Cyclists with head cams are already in the vigilante game but pro rata, with 32 million drivers doing 300 billion miles a year, far more cyclists are breaking the law more frequently

3 Putting one's body on two flimsy wheels on a slender frame in the middle of essential infrastructure is screaming out for insurance to a sensible person.

8 There are only two classes of road user that society must have to survive and sustain and that's walkers and drivers. It really doesn't need any other hazard, liability and impediment. Roads are infrastructure for vital machines. We need to re-think what we must have on roads in 2015. There are already 12 dead UK cyclists this year. Was their ride so important? 

I'm off to get my tin hat :-))

Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Uncle Tom, Cobley and All Tv Debates.

Is Sky News patriotic and for the UK or just Sky News?

We are not having a two man presidential election but electing a whole government and Parliament. Your debates in 2010 caused a coalition by elevating one man, Nick Clegg. Is that good for the UK? Coalition? Fractured government?

We should all applaud David Cameron for trying to kill a repeat of that charade on whatever pretext. 

Who stands out from this bunch? The one who's missing and understands that we are a parliamentary system and not a presidential one. So let's re-wind. See below.

With the furor'e surrounding David Cameron's intransigence towards live TV debates between the party leaders, it's easy to forget that, because of Gordon Brown's decision to give credence to the debates as the incumbent at the last elections, this country has been saddled with a coalition and fragmented hamstrung government for the last five years.

Mssrs Clegg, Farage and Miliband are now dishonestly telling the British people that it is their right to have these televised leader debates and in doing so, are accusing David Cameron of running scared and dictating to TV companies. Since when was it the right of TV moguls to dictate the process of a National Election and its terms? As a result of Brown caving in to them in 2010, we finished up with a Sky TV Government. Do we really want another coalition? 

It is not a constitutional right that party leaders must take part in any TV debate at all. On the contrary, in The United Kingdom it is unconstitutional. That is because, unlike an American Presidential Election, we are not electing one man of two but a whole government and Parliament. Now either Clegg, Farage and Miliband understand that but for their own ends are abandoning our parliamentary system or worse, like many candidates, they simply don't understand the very system they are seeking to be part of..

If we are to decide general elections on the basis of a few individuals taking part in a TV debate, why not just drop all the rest of the candidates, their local branches, and all their constituency door knockers and so save us all a lot of time and money? 

Any true Parliamentarian, with an understanding of our system, would wish to put it before the aspirations of TV companies. I am afraid that, so far, Clegg, Miliband and Farage are failing us all for their own advantage and that of TV shareholders. It's about time these politicians put Parliament first while seeking election to it. There is no place for these debates during a General Election and so I won't vote for any party that patronises them. 

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Is this commissioner's objective road safety or votes?

 In this Watford Observer article it seems that David Lloyd, the Hertfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner falls for the police rationale, that all speeding is deliberate disobedience. How can anyone be that silly and then get elected to such an exalted policing role?  

Has he ever surveyed drivers as to how many deliberately go out to speed? You see it is crucial to justify current speeding policy. Police have to believe all speeding is deliberate because, if not so, then it means there must be faults or causes which can be corrected. That would never do. It would mean a complete re-appraisal of police policy. I thought we elected police commissioners like David to do just that. 

Here we explain why speeding happens. See  Perhaps Mr Lloyd should look at it. 

Usually if there is lots of speeding without lots of accidents, it is clearly a failure which is indicative of a flawed speed limit or an enticing road layout. These can be corrected possibly with repeater signs or digital reactor signs to achieve the desired objective. Just taking pictures of drivers and sending them letters is not curing the problem. This is because the assumption of police and clearly David Lloyd too it seems, is always that speeding is always deliberate. 

If these were accidents and deaths, would David Lloyd send out amateurs to take pictures of them or find out why they were happening and correct it? He is at heart a politician and clearly playing a popularity contest with road safety with an eye to the next PCC elections. He should remember that drivers make up the majority of voters.

I am also concerned that vigilantism is never a good idea and police usually do not encourage it. They are not experts and usually not supervised by police experts either. See  Motorists have every right to challenge these people and demand their identification  just as they have with police officers.

The fact is that, although not prosecuted initially, offending drivers do go into the police database so that could result in prosecution on another occasion instead of just a warning so their actions are not as benign as the article infers. 

Saturday, 10 January 2015

Lincolnshire Safety Partnership can't stop themselves misleading the public it seems

Further to my previous Blog on them (Remind yourself here.) Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership have used this selective claim already, and yes when they did it then I reminded them that it isn't very honest.

In this Lincolnshire Echo story, someone has told the paper that the partnership was formed after there was 104 road fatals in Lincolnshire in 1999.

 Whilst it is true that there were 104 Lincolnshire road deaths in 1999, prior to the formation of the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership, there were also 104 in 2003 after the partnership was formed too. In fact in 1993 there were only 76 fatals before the Partnership  but 84 in 2001 and 91 in 2002 after the Partnership as well.

What we must understand is that road use keeps 60 million people and all of Lincolnshire alive so any policy must be cost effective. 

We must not over regulate a major infrastructure in an effort to achieve impossible goals and then indirectly kill far more people.from the cost of an insatiable Road Safety Industry, flawed policy and selective information..

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

12 March Amateurs and profiteers on anti driver bun fight..

Just look at this line up and you'll see it all. The profit from the fees for the conference, the amateurs, ideologists and profiteering vested interests. All here on one poster. Visionics makes and supplies speed cameras. So here we have a direct link with 20 zone campaigners feeding profiteers. More on visionics here

Then add to that all of your public officials, paid from your rates who will attend this bash at £125 + Vat and their wages too and you see why there is so much focus on road safety. It's one big bun fight at the cost of drivers and ratepayers.

And the platform will not include independent experts on road safety and driving.. 

Some of the speakers are in this group. Road safety fat cats.

Chris Boardman who makes and sells expensive bikes won't point out that the only road users society must have are drivers and walkers. See the cheek of Chis Boardman

No driving expert to point out that in those busy congested areas of adults and children, animals and cyclists, parked cars and crossings, they would prefer drivers driving through their windscreens and not worrying about a number on a pole. 

No expert to point out that without road motor traffic we would all be dead and there's nothing healthy in that at all.

No expert to say that instead of blanketing streets where accidents are not happening we should focus on the sites and streets where they are happening and correct the issue.

A classic of the amateur anti driver lobby with no CV in the subject having too much platform and sponsored by the profiteers and vested interests. 

I have written to my local authority to demand they send no-one to this.  Happy New Year Councillor,

Are you able to establish if any of our officials and police are slated to attend this expensive anti driver Bunfight? Speed Limit proposals organised by an anti driver group, with Cambridge City Council, sponsored by speed camera manufacturers and with established anti driver ideologists as speakers, but no independent road safety experts on the platform. 

I am sure we need the money for other things, such as road repairs etc.

Do enjoy this blog detailing the matter and the links too.

I do write as a Lincolnshire driver and ratepayer.


And it was successful. Both local police forces and councils have assured me no-one will be attending. 

Why not mail in to your local council & CC your local paper?

It's easy. Just look them up using This link or go to your council web site.

Monday, 5 January 2015

TfL no brainer green consultation.

In this consultation Tfl are enticing the public into very costly and counter productive emission policy. Like all polls and surveys they are set up as a no brainer questionnaire. Of course there's loads of vested interest such as lots of perfectly good scrapped vehicles and new technology to be sold. And let's just ignore the increased pollution, loss of energy from scrapping and producing replacement vehicles and not least the massive loss to the economy by doing it too, but hey ho!

Of course we love fresh air, but don't let's entirely overlook that the population lives longer because of road transport, or, to put it another way, most of us would die without it and that's very unhealthy isn't it?

I have done the survey and the only thing I have supported is restricting these ideas to the public transport vehicles since they are a major beneficiary of less and more restricted private vehicles.

These proposals do not acknowledge that life expectancy is increasing and without motor vehicles and drivers, London and people would die in large numbers. So in effect motoring is healthy yet policy is always based on an anti driver negative ideology. That is what is behind most policy nowadays. What will be the economic downside to these proposals and what will be the knock on effect on the community? 

Climate change? All of UK's total CO2 output is less than 2% of all man made CO2 of which all of UK's motor transport is about 0.7%  In any case C02 is an essential element and we are currently at an historic low when the planet was much lusher and vibrant at about 4 times this level. There is still no evidence that climate change is caused by mankind at all. It is worrying that TfL are including this as an object when it is so dishonest. 

Why not do the survey and vote against it? Even if you never drive in London, what they get away with other cities and towns will follow.

Take the survey Here