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

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Yet another pretty young doctor thinks she's a road safety and driving expert

We have already commented on the amount of people with no CV in driving, road safety, accidents and prosecution having a major say in the subject. The worst are the academics that use their honors to give themselves credibility in a subject for which they know very little about. In this case, Dr Fiona Fylan, chunters on about the psychology of speeders -based on it's always their fault- without addressing what actually causes speeding and dangerously confusing speeding with dangerous driving too. 

Dr Fylan
See her in action here..We note that she is involved with Road Safety GB yet another spurious organisation to which all local road safety officers, also with no CV defer. More on them here and here 

I have written to Dr Fiona explaining what speeding is and what causes it as follows:

Dear Doctor Fylan,

We are ex police driving & road safety experts.

I expect that your objectives are for best, not profit or ideologically based road safety.

Please do read our explanation of speed related offences. and in particular the fact that 'Speeding' cannot cause an accident. Thus there is no such offence of death by speeding. The fourth category you describe are not just speeding but driving dangerously. Were they to kill anyone the charge wouldn 't be death by speeding. It is crucial that we do not refer to dangerous driving as speeding.

With regard to coercive speed awareness courses for profit, we cannot find any legal authority whereby police can waive due judicial process on payment of money to anyone other than the courts. In fact we jail police officers who offer such wheeling and dealing. See & In any case these courses are valueless because they are not teaching the truth about speeding, the cameras and the limits either. In fact they are counter productive because they depend on and need speeders to subsist. This is why high volume sites are allowed to continue to fail by many thousands of cultivated speeders when the problem could be corrected. If a site generated 10s of 1000s of accidents, would police just take pictures and money or find out what's going wrong and correct it? So here is the evidence of a mercenary fiscal objective.

The unintentional categories you speak of are victims of a set formula which, as an expert driver and someone who studies many speed limits too, can tell you that it is caused by either an enticing road layout, lack of sufficient signage reminders, or  inappropriate speed limits which can all be easily corrected if the true objective is to reduce speeders and not to keep the speeding industry in business.

I am sorry but my studies show that those who deliberately speed slightly are very rare but those that do deserve a ticket ;even though if the limit were appropriate and set scientifically as opposed to the unqualified political parochial aspirations, as they now often are, there would be less of those too. I am afraid that your premise is that the limit is correct. What is the driving cv of the person who picks the number?

What is serious is that all this profitable focus on speeding that cannot cause accidents is at the expense of ignoring some accident causes totally and others partially. This is killing people. An example of this is the Fatal 4 campaign where only 3 are fatal but speeding, which isn't but makes a lot of money, is included yet dangerous and careless  driving,  which undoubtedly kill people, are excluded. How dangerously corrupt is that?

Are you sure that you can put your qualifications in support of such dangerous profiteering?

Please do not hesitate to contact us for independent expert  road safety, driving, and prosecution advice.


Keith Peat

Let's see if the good doctor is just another interested in self promotion by propaganda or someone genuinely interested in road safety?


  1. You lost any claim to credibility in the first line when you referred to Dr Fylan's appearance, as though being pleasing to look at from the perspective of a middle-aged man somehow prevented her from having a valid opinion.

    1. What utter nonsense. At 75 I am far past 'middle age' and able to note a succession of pretty, young, female academics meddling in road safety without the CV.

      Let's get real. It's not chauvinism to point out that in matters driving & road safety, women tend to be much more motivated by emotion and emotionalism than men and tend to see road safety from a far too simplistic perspective. However let's just settle for there are far too many of these academics with no CV in road safety, meddling in a life and death issue and that's very worrying.

      So you think that attacking me for pointing out that her opinion was invalid because she has no qualification and detailing what was wrong with her rationale, addresses the meddlers in road safety with an irrational anti driver green agenda is a valid reason to dismiss the facts and reality?

      So address the points I make. They are far more important than your criticism to date.

    2. So far the good Doctor hasn't even acknowledged all the valid and good expert information we have submitted to her.

      So is she really interested in road safety or self promotion? Draw your own conclusions.

    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    4. "It's not chauvinism to point out that in matters driving & road safety, women tend to be much more motivated by emotion and emotionalism than men and tend to see road safety from a far too simplistic perspective."

      Pretty much a dictionary definition of chauvinism.

    5. I imagine she's ignoring you, because you're a dickhead, pal.

      No one is under any obligation to reply to you. You have no charge on anybodies time.

    6. So let's get this straight. A young doctor with no CV in road safety, one of several such young female academics, as well as the ladies of BRAKE and female MPs too speak nonsense on life and death road safety, and no-one must notice a trait here?

      But so what? What about the serious points I make? You are really more concerned at playing the man than genuine expert road safety?

      'Dickhead'? Yes when you get personal it means you are devoid of any worthwhile debate. However yes this Doctor ought to respond to very good points if she is 'man' enough on a life and death issue, where many thousands of perfectly safe drivers are being prosecuted don't you think? After all, if she doesn't respond or is polite enough to accept she was wrong, she deserves all she gets from me. It's up to her. Fact is she cannot sue me and that should be of concern to all people she publishes her rubbish to.