More evidence of anti driver officials running our roads. They must be sacked.

It could've been worse. They could've given AA's Edmund King a coveted Knighthood. However his OBE, no doubt less than 'arise Sir Edmund', is enough to prove our case that a whole anti driver, anti profit free genuine road safety regime is running government.  

How can this man get any award for anything road safety? If this is wrong Edmund sue me. 

Edmund King OBE

But here's another in the same list. Up till 2015 he was a DfT civil servant And gets a CBE. Now a director of RACF, See an example of them here and Here.

We had already traced anti driver 20's Plenty Rod King's MBE

Rod King

Roger Geffen 

 to the DfT See the DfT Smoking Gun and just like King, and Stephen Gooding, road safety, without any CV, and to be dangerously meddling in it at all, really isn't for commendation. And the recent MBE of virulent anti driver of CTC. Roger Geffen who appeared before a Transport Select Committee with King, where King pretended to be the reasonable face of drivers when actually not representing drivers at all.  More on CTC here See King & Geffen at work on Select Committee and still tell me that King & AA are pro driver. 

I had already noted the amount of anti driver, anti genuine road safety OBEs and CBEs and the links to the DfT. See here.

I had also noted that no matter what party was in government, ministers were still responding with the same illogical anti road safety anti driver replies as their predecessors did. So clearly there seemed to be an anti driver green influence within the DfT. All the foregoing only corroborates that view. The discovery of Stephen Gooding, so recently a senior civil servant at DfT and now with the anti driver RACF, is very worrying even if he is at least no longer there. 

Now we have the recent discovery that such DfT civil servants, without any CV whatsoever, are instructing police to submit bogus accident stats that promote speeding profiteering. See open letter to police chiefs How corrupt? What gross DfT interference. 

We all depend on drivers and road transport. Without all drivers society and the economy would collapse totally and very soon all 65 million of us would die. By definition any aggressive policy against drivers is therefore aggression against the whole community. There is no place for anti driver civil servants in central or local government. They are anti community.

Let's look to getting them all sacked.  

Enough of these bogus anti driver tax break charities with no CV in road safety.

In this story.  BRAKE are annoyed with the Government for failing to be tougher on essential UK infrastructure and drivers in their insatiable and ridiculous demands for lower and lower road casualties.

Of course there has been a predictable increase in road casualties over last year which was an exceptionally low year and one bound to be followed by slightly higher figures thereafter.

'the Statement fails to include casualty reduction targets or a 'vision zero', which would make clear that the ultimate goal is to reduce deaths to zero.'

How do these people get taken seriously when they make 
demands like that? 

At the moment, after 300 billion driver miles a year, with drivers having to cope with all sorts of animal and human hazards, there is less death on the road from all causes than there is from accidents in the home, from strangulation, from hanging and from self harm.

Perhaps we should be asking why we actually need BRAKE and all the other bogus unqualified anti driver tax break road safety charities at all? And if the tax break money being consumed by BRAKE and their ilk would save more lives if spent with the NHS or Fire and Rescue or police?

Do see this graphic perspective of the UK Road Safety Fat Cats. See it here

Why are BRAKE so dangerous? For a start they have no CV in road safety, accident reporting or top driving and so, like lots of road safety meddlers, are not qualified to be commenting on the matter. But then they fail to take into account the fact that, whilst there are bound to be road casualties, especially if people like BRAKE are recommending more cycling for example, our whole society and economy is based on motor transport, especially the motor car. Take them away and all 65 million of us die. So a trade off of about 2000 a year to keep 65 million alive has to be OK surely. 

To achieve 'zero' would mean stopping all road traffic and thus killing 65 million of us. How can any official take these people seriously? Well the same crowd were taken in by Jimmy Saville too weren't they? 

Maybe we have long passed the cost benefit number anyway whereby we are not killing enough people on the road and far more from the economic cost of not doing so elsewhere in society. Has anyone calculated this? Certainly those within the lucrative road safety bubble, like BRAKE, have no interest in any other sort of death which leads me to think they have no real interest in road death either.

BRAKE are not really interested in saving lives as much as making lots of money for BRAKE whilst doing its utmost to screw important and essential infrastructure. See BRAKE finance

Let's get it clear. The Road Safety Industry is not free, it's not benign, it's very aggressive and it's a minority of profiteers operating against the interests of the whole community who depend on drivers to exist. 

Good road safety will never come from profit, or anti driver ideology. So Why is the DfT supporting these dangerous charities?

Should the police be screwing the community for them either? See this open letter to NPCC

We must close down this whole anti community industry and start afresh.

Look at these tax break companies who are supporting these anti community charities. See them here.

North Yorks Chief Constable supports misuse of bereaved

In its presentation of a fatal accident, North Yorks Police used a bereaved relative to falsely promote speeding policy by claiming the accident was caused by 'speeding'  The simple fact is that had the driver survived, the charge wouldn't have been death by speeding but by dangerous driving. It's bad enough that police should lie about these things but to exploit bereaved to do so is appalling conduct by any standards.

See the original story here.

To then label me as oppressive, vexatious and abusive for simply raising the issue with them just shows how volatile and nasty the police can be to protect their very lucrative speeding industry at the expense of real accident causes. See how NorthYorks must lie And here on the fatal 4

I wrote to their Chief Constable David Jones with what I imagined would be a simple proposition that using bereaved to publish false and dangerous information should cease:

 David Jones Esq,

Chief Constable,

North Yorkshire Police,

Newby Wiske
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL7 9HA

5^th November 15

Your Ref: 870815

Dear Mr Jones,

Exploiting bereaved to promote false public statements on speed

Thank you for your response of the 28/10/15 by an indecipherable signatory.

Yes I will write to Ms Davenport as you suggest.

However there is no reason why your force cannot act unilaterally on such an important point and raise the matter with her and indeed effect changes locally too.

The issue with NYP specifically isn’t the Fatal 4 campaign but that a bereaved was used to publicly promote false statements about the cause of an accident and subsequently the inappropriate language used by one of your officers against me for raising the issue.

I note that you have not disagreed with me that ‘speeding’, that is to simply exceed a number on a pole, cannot cause a reaction or an accident to occur and that in the case cited, it would’ve have been dangerous driving. It is dangerous driving or careless driving that do cause accidents and they are not included as causes in the Fatal 4. In view of that I offered a reasonable resolution in that your force would cease to make false statements about accidents and use bereaved to do so.

My aim is for best and genuine road safety, far less focus on ‘speeding’ and more on genuine accident causes. Perhaps NYP can join me and support my work by amending the Fatal 4 to a Fatal 5 that includes dangerous and careless driving but not speeding.

I accept we must have speed limits and cameras as a tool in the tool box, but given that most speed limits I survey are inappropriate and set on a very arbitrary parochial basis anyway, there are far too many perfectly safe drivers being prosecuted currently as a result by a profit based regime that must have speeders now to sustain itself. It worries me then that this industry is promoting itself via bereaved to make false statements.

Will you join me by instigating a focus on genuine accident causes as I suggested?

Wishes

Keith Peat.

Cc NYP Commissioner.

Mr Jones replied. 

So there we have it. Top police are not prepared to kill off road safety lies that fetch in loads of money.