Cyclist v Driver War is totally irrelevant.

In this story re drivers v cyclists 
we see the classic stunt of pretending a level playing field when discussing cyclists and drivers.

Straight away I will note that here is an example of dear old Edmund King, President of the AA playing his usual game of pretending to be the reasonable face of the UK driver.

Edmund King

Here he says:  "Cyclists are more vulnerable than car users. They have the same rights on the road and drivers should remember they are sharing the road with cyclists."

Here is King being a nice driver when representing cyclists to Parliament and demanding more driver prosecution whilst at it. See him in action here.

And of course here is his vested interests in driver prosecution too. See: he didn't tell the committee this.

How can such an academic and frequent spokesman on road safety and roads issues miss the fundamentals so often and continue to do so even though I regularly remind him of them?

So let's start where the Cambridge News & King, either by ignorance or dishonesty, fail society by not starting at the basics.

There are 35 million drivers without whom society would collapse totally whereas society has no need of cyclists on the road. In fact, there are only two types of road user that society must have and they are walkers and drivers.

Cyclists are indulged by society, and because they are an obstruction and a liability to essential infrastructure, society is at a disadvantage by doing so.

The Greens, most of whom think we should all cycle and walk, and of course the cycle lobby who agree with them, cannot come to terms with this reality. If only the Green Cycle Lobby didn't bang on so much about driving and drivers then there would be no need to point out how irrelevant and unimportant they are. But since this phony cycling v driver war is being promoted by the likes of Cambridge News and King, then surely it is right to get cycling and driving into a realistic perspective.

Cycling really isn't important to society at all. It's certainly nowhere as important as the Cycle Lobby would have it.

It is long overdue that society should expose all the Green journalists and officials as being anti community when they try to diminish drivers to the level of some unneeded lifestyle, mostly recreational pursuit, as they do.

The community depends on its drivers and to undermine drivers is no service to the community. Let's question the motives and politics of any official, journalist or firm who fails to support the community by being overtly or covertly anti driver. See some examples here. 

Perhaps Cambridge drivers could think of buying a different local newspaper for a start. 

Anti Driver MPs demanding more driver jail again.

Here we go again. Yet another MP with no CV in driving, road safety or prosecution is leading a Bill for more driver incarceration. See the story here.

Driver voters at Nottingham North may wish to remember Graham Allen MP

Graham Allen MP

 when it's time to cast your votes. 

I have already dealt with these illogical calls in detail here

But basically, drivers keep all 65 million of us, our community and our economy alive.

That jail is only a deterrent for a deliberate intended act. No-one deliberately drives dangerously and many drivers, are, after all, only made up of very ordinary simple people of very basic ability and whose driving is inherently dangerous anyway bless them. Ironically it's usually the drivers who think they're the greatest that frighten me most. So do explain how punishment works when an act isn't deliberate or intended.   

Dangerous driving is a matter of subjective opinion, and mostly the opinion of inexpert hostile witnesses. For all other offences of long term of imprisonment, such inexpert opinion isn't allowed in evidence. 

In any case, unless this is motivated by a senseless anti driver mentality, how about perspective on all sorts of human casualty causes? See a perspective here.  

Society cannot have it both ways, where, because we need it, it's expedient to let all sorts of humans to mix and mingle with large infrastructure and then find scapegoats when it goes wrong.  Either ban driving or not but don't allow a scenario then jail people for it when it goes wrong. 

Sack this Detective Constable

Here in this story we have a classic example of dishonest road safety officials making confusing and deceiving public comments and the pointless accident investigation industry all in one place.

This driver wasn't charged or convicted of death by speeding was he? So why is the paper and worse still the Detective Constable, trying to pretend this was all about speeding? We explain in detail the relevant accident causes and offences Here

Here the DC has even employed the confusing and unofficial 'Excessive speed' trick to divert from the real accident cause, dangerous driving, to pretend and confuse us that this accident was caused by speeding. What is wrong with just saying it was caused by dangerous driving? Well the police make a lot of money from speeding don't they so they promote it even though it cannot cause accidents. There are only three offences where speed is an issue and they are speeding, careless or dangerous driving and all are adequate to accurately describe the situation. 'Excessive speed' doesn't exist in law so no official should use the term. They persist with it to confuse the public and to mingle speeding with dangerous driving; as in this case.

That's why 'speeding' is wrongly included in the Fatal 4 initiative and careless and dangerous driving, that are fatal, are blatantly and dangerously excluded. See more here

Here is also an example of why we need to dismantle the pointless, costly and lucrative accident investigation branch of the police. Serious collision investigation units Road safety has become a lucrative industry. Here Detective Constable Seamus Burns of East Midlands SCIU has not only proved why we don't need these units, but that he doesn't even know what caused the accident that he investigated or, if he does, he's deliberately misleading the public about it. Either way he needs to be stood down.

If his force is concerned about genuine road safety he will be. Let's see. 

Here is an anti driver official who must be sacked

Just look at the absolute sillyness of this scheme where an anti driver Northumberland  official clearly thinks that society must have cyclists against the actual needs of the community. See this death trap  
This official must be sacked as he or she is a green menace.

Now see this nationally.

Anti driver officials & bogus charities must be stood down.

Here in one blog we link the anti driver officials and charities who have been dominating road safety policy and drivers for years.

Aggressive anti driver policy is an aggression against the whole community. This anti driver aggression is mostly about green ideology and certainly has nothing to do with road safety at all.

There should be no place for anti driver officials, police or charities and they should be identified and stood down.

Here are the links to them and their supporters.

The police chief

DfT & More DfT & More DFT

The vested interests named

Tax break firms supporting anti driver agression

Drivers we must get rid of these anti driver tax break charities, officials, and avoid the firms who support them too.

Only then will we achieve genuine road safety and stop aggressive anti driver policy. 

How this manifests itself in road safety:

This example of a dangerous anti community official must be sacked.

Detective Constable misleads readers,

Police use innocent bereaved to mislead public

Should a gay woman be head of roads policing?

Suzette Davenport, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Police, is head of the NPCC Roads Policing.

Suzette is a declared gay. She outs herself here

Suzette Davenport

Of course there is no problem with a gay woman heading the police providing that she does so pragmatically and without any evidence of personal ideology and preferences playing any part in her policy.

From my own experience and evidence, I am afraid to say that men and women are different in many ways, and none more so than attitudes to driving, drivers and road safety.

Generally women tend to base their road safety ideas on emotionalism instead of fact. This is why anti driver BRAKE is run mostly by women with no road safety CV See. and Here too . Most calls for more driver punishment are made by women MPs and most anti driver academics tend to be young women with no CV in road safety too. See

So is there any evidence that Ms Davenport is in fact anti driver? Yes there is.

Under her, for the first time in its history, fixed penalty became subjective to prosecute drivers without trial for the third most serious driving offence, careless driving. See See the case and Suzette on this too

The dishonest Fatal 4 initiative that falsely claims speeding can cause fatals, yet oddly ignores careless and dangerous driving that do cause fatals. See Suzette is behind this one too and More on that lie here

Then under Suzette the amazing situation where  DfT officials are being allowed to dictate to police, how to submit false stats on accident causes. See it here

Now add to that that she is a cyclist, and here she is in her Team Sky kit doing a 300 mile charity ride. As I have terminal spine cancer myself, I do support her choice of charity, but why use roads and impose another unnecessary hazard on drivers for charity? Why not bungee jump, or do a free fall parachute jump instead? Would we impose cycling on rail or air infrastructure like this? We do have ample evidence of lycra al a Wiggo racing style cyclists like this who really do see drivers as the enemy. 

So all in all, the evidence is that Suzette Davenport is one who seems to be allowing her personal ideology to affect her role output. She's certainly overseeing a corrupt and dishonest profit base road safety regime.

Well we have given her a chance to address all this and so in this detailed open letter to her we have outlined all that is wrong and corrupt with police road safety policy. See it here

So if Suzette isn't man enough to address all this honestly on the basis that anti driver aggression, is by definition, anti community too, then it's time she stood down. 

After all, how does it help gay women if their first ever top police officer appears to be so stereotypical in policy and outlook?  It doesn't.