Drivers must learn from these two trials.

Two cases have just ended in the courts involving cyclists and drivers. 

In this one,  driver-jailed-for-eight-months-after-colliding-with-cyclist-riding-three-abreast-1-7355645  The driver was gaoled. 

In this one,  Driver_involved_in_fatal_crash_with_cyclist_tells_court_the_rider_was_on_the_wrong_side_of_the_road/  

In both cases, cyclists were in the wrong position on the road.

In one case, the cyclist came round a left hand bend, fast, with other cyclists in a timed event. Because he was fast, and not well over to the left, he collided with a car coming up the hill, that had ironically just safely overtaken yet another cyclist, pumping up the hill; no doubt giving the kind of exaggerated passing distance demanded by the cycle lobby. Even if he were still in the middle of the road, this whole event was still caused by unnecessary human activity in the road; as indeed was the other case too. 

Will any lessons be learned from this?

So in the first case, has this encouraged cyclists to ignore safety, ignore other road users and still ride three abreast? In other words, how will this case stop it happening again? What's wrong with cyclists riding single file and keeping to the left if they insist on mingling with crucial infrastructure in the first place? 

In the second case, why are we using crucial infrastructure for some kind of dangerous timed activity? Roads, like railway lines and airport runways, are essential infrastructure. Let's keep cycling competition off the open roads.

But the most important lesson? In the first case, in many ways the most compelling, the driver pleaded not guilty and was acquitted. 

In the second case the driver pleaded guilty and is now in gaol.

Drivers: Never plead guilty to any offence involving cyclists who are behaving in such a road dominating fashion. They have a duty of care for their own safety. 

I believe that while society allows any unneeded dangerous activity in our roads, like unprotected humans, travelling at unnatural speed and being exposed to big essential machinery, which cannot possibly be safe, then how can anyone be blamed when it goes badly wrong?

Perhaps more defence lawyers should be raising this for their clients instead of just taking their easiest option. Drivers ensure your lawyer isn't a keen cyclist too. 

But I am sure that lawyers would agree that, if arrested at one of these horrific accidents, drivers should never make any comment about it or replies to the police at that time and without a lawyer present.

So when cyclists ride dangerously & kill it is an 'accident'

I have continuously pointed out how officials have managed to remove the word 'accident' from their vocabulary when it comes to drivers. They are now always called 'collisions' so that loads of police time and money can be spent looking for someone to blame and prosecute. See does road accident investigation actually achieve anything and Road accidents do happen.  

So if a cyclist dies when road racing it's an accident but for drivers, accidents aren't allowed? https://t.co/st5bb3DXzI @PoliceChiefs

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) April 22, 2016

A rider, Alessandro Williams, described the closing stages of the 42-mile race to the court, saying: (68km) event as "manic and dangerous".

He told the court: "I felt it was manic and dangerous because of not only the speed we were approaching the finish but also the twisting nature of it (the course). Everything was flying past because of the speed we were doing."

Now if a driver had struck and killed a cyclist while driving too fast and too close, he would've been prematurely arrested whilst in shock and trauma and eventually tried and gaoled.  

It's ironic that the Cycle Lobby hate the word 'accident' for drivers too.  

So now we know. There is such a thing as road accidents. So let's dump RTC and bring back RTA. It'll release a lot more coppers to do what we want them to do most, and save us a fortune in taxes too. 

Transport Research Laboratory refuse to answer legitimate questions.

Yesterday we looked at the Transport Research Laboratory on driver-less vehicles. See it here

Claiming to be impartial and independent, we have shown their links with anti driver academics and groups. For people promoting driver-less vehicles, it should be crucial that they are not being associated with anti driver groups with no CV in road safety or driving.

They have revealed that, as we suspected, driver-less vehicles are not programmed to the standards of UK's most efficient, skillful and progressive drivers.

They have been unable to answer simple questions such as: 'How will the vehicles cope with the unfathomable Highway Code rule (163)?' for example. See More about 163 here

We have invited them several times to discuss all these issues with us here. It seems they are not equipped to deal with any other than anti driver groups with no CV and certainly not with genuine independent road safety experts on this. It matters not who is asking these very crucial questions, they should be able to address them honestly and with a view to reviewing driver-less policy.

So far they are refusing. See the following tweets:

@nreed_trl So can we start again on #driverlesscars & discuss realities based on independent expert road safety & driving?

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 22, 2016

@nreed_trl Ok so discuss this. Is @Claire4Devizes deluded? https://t.co/4XZvNFrdNZ

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 22, 2016

@nreed_trl @BogTrotter1 No, So we can discuss on the blog. https://t.co/tgEAtaCO8X

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) April 22, 2016

@Driver_Hatred @BogTrotter1 Oh dear. As I said before I tried to debate properly. What a shame. I'd be grateful if you took down that page.

— Nick Reed (@nreed_trl) April 22, 2016

@Ken_J_Murray @nreed_trl @BogTrotter1 I can assure you the hits on this are piling up as you'd expect.

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) April 23, 2016

@Ken_J_Murray @nreed_trl @BogTrotter1 Don't be encouraged by the odd anti driver minority Nick face the 35million you want off the road

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) April 23, 2016

@nreed_trl You haven't debated anything that about this matter but advanced a mantra. Your responses are on the page for all to see. I /2

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 23, 2016

@nreed_trl 2/2 The public would be grateful to know your responses to real road safety expertise raising real issues on this for once, >

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 23, 2016

@nreed_trl > I will be quite happy to remove any untrue or libellous content but if there is none then yes it's TrL that should listen.

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 23, 2016

 

So who are TRL? Well they're yet another Ltd Company doing very well out of road safety. They appear to be funded by several outfits and possibly research grants too. They own  TRLAppia More on them here and an outfit called TTR Travel & Transport Research Ltd See about them here Which seems to be about supplying their wares all over the EU and to our Councils. But look at this: Promoting-Cycling-and-Improving-Road-Safety-for-Cyclists:-Challenges-and-Next-Steps_58.htm & Purchasing innovative cycling measures Oh right. So now we have it. No wonder TRL won't answer why we are programming driver-less cars to please a minority lobby and dangerous unneeded road activity. 

Driver-less cars. Transport Research Laboratory listening to wrong people.

Professor Nick Reed

. 

TRL and Transport Research Laboratory are trading names of TRL Limited, registered in England No. 3142272. Registered Office: Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 3GA, United Kingdom. VAT Number: 664625321.

Prince Michael International Road Safety Awards

TRL has also won no less than seven prestigious Prince Michael International Road Safety Awards since 2000. Click here to see how TRL has excelled in this area.  See Prince with no CV on 5 star road safety junkets.

The TRL Academy, full of academics, with no CV in road safety or driving and includes such as Dr Sally Cairns See She is a direct link with anti car ownership and anti driver RACF 

Here's Cairns wanting us out of cars 

So we have established a direct link with this alleged independent, highly consulted, highly regarded institution with anti driver groups and road safety profiteers. 

Dr Sally Cairns definitely wants less cars and drivers and this tends to confirm our case that driver-less cars are not for ordinary people, who will never be able to afford them and will be reduced to walking, cycling & buses. 

See more of these anti driver academics here

We have already challenged the driver-less nonsense with these points:

Here and

Here and

Here  So I won't rehearse it all again today. Suffice to say, there is an awful lot of unqualified promotion behind driver-less vehicles and an awful lot of cheating behind their presentation. Take it from me, they are not for ordinary people who simply couldn't afford or maintain them, they would be unable to replace the 300 billion efficient miles a year required to sustain the community that drivers do, and the technology, good enough to fly planes on empty straight paths to land on empty straight runways, is far too basic to operate vehicles on busy alternating roads. See How will they comply with this nonsense?

In view of that, it is very worrying to actually read Nick Reed and the TRL on all this so now look at these tweets from him. He has a one to one with BRAKE of all people.

 See loads of anti driver Brake rubbish here But worse than that, he doesn't think a CV in driving and road safety should count when it comes to what is good on the roads.

Well I have asked Nick to respond to all my points on here, but it is my experience that vested interests usually overcome honesty and reality. 

In the meantime let's get these academics to consult experts; there is no degree in the subject that counts in this life and death issue.

So far Driver-less vehicles are not based on reality or for the community but more on an anti driver ideology and TRL is certainly connected with all that. 

@NewsfromTRL @AAPresident @nreed_trl The Met Elite do not like Proles having independence & choice. https://t.co/F5naJwiFD8

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 20, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL @AAPresident Impressive academics but your driving & road safety expertise is what? That's what matters in this.

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL There's more killed from accidents in the home, strangling, self harm, suicide than from any cause on the road!

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL Our drivers keep all 65 million alive. The dead are mostly down to irrelevant profiteering road safety policy.

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

@DriverUnion @PoliceChiefs @IAMgroup It's work in progress but eventually they could be even better.

— Nick Reed (@nreed_trl) April 21, 2016

@nreed_trl @PoliceChiefs @IAMgroup Ah work in progress? So on what basis are they now on the road? To kid people? @AAPresident

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) April 22, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL @Brakecharity @20splentyforus @PACTS Our road safety is run by greens, with no CV & a hatred of infrastructure.

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

@Brakecharity Thanks Gary, no worries. 

— Nick Reed (@nreed_trl) April 21, 2016

@nreed_trl @DriverUnion @NewsfromTRL @20splentyforus @PACTS But @Brakecharity never have engaged in genuine road safety Nick.Their CV is?

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 22, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL @Brakecharity @20splentyforus @PACTS When it comes to road safety, driving & crucial infrastructure yes CVs matter.

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

@nreed_trl @NewsfromTRL So, no CV in road safety & driving? So who's programming these vehicles? @Brakecharity @20splentyforus @PACTS ?

— Drivers Union. (@DriverUnion) April 21, 2016

Right so on road safety, driving, economics of road infrastructure, TRL aren't interested in 'Credentials' Got it! https://t.co/v0o8HKTHRG

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) April 22, 2016

TRL have refused point blank to address legitimate concerns about driver-less vehicles and asked us to close this page down. See the exchanges & how they make their money here 

Chippy foul mouthed head cam cyclist bullies are cry babies in reality

An Edinburgh taxi driver has punched a chippy head cam cyclist.

Let me say from the start, punching someone is illegal even though many deserve it and it can be very cathartic. Let's face it; society can be very pious about assault. Common people shouldn't do it but when leaders of nations disagree, they can sling Atom bombs at each other and that's OK. I would rather stick two heads of government in a boxing ring, rather than involving whole societies in the blood and gore of war, to sort international issues out with one decent punch. 

In this article The Mail on Line seems to be pro cyclist & anti driver

If the driver has since been prosecuted for assault and careless driving, it is difficult to see how, a successful pass, at a very slow overtake speed, based on a wide angle lens view of an unofficial camera, is anything but subjective. No driver should ever plead guilty on that evidence.

See safe passing distance.

I have written to the author:

Hi,

Have you been watching the same video that I have?

The confrontation commenced with the cyclist's subjective annoyance at being passed safely and then his foul mouthed and persistent tirade that needed to be bleeped out.  He even pulled into the middle of the lane to further obstruct the cabbie and then actually chases him, through a red light where another cyclist had already stopped, to continue his abuse.

Of course any driver will be angered by confrontation and abuse. Since when was it a good idea for any road user to rebuke other road users? These head cams are emboldening cyclists and inflaming confrontation. 

But here is a classic example of these head cam bullies. A middle aged man has been provoked enough to punch one and their response? 'Police police some nasty man has assaulted me'. Like all bullies, big, fit, loads of noise but really are cry babies. 

That's what this video shows me. 

Journalists should never miss the truth no matter how unappealing.

Wishes

Keith Peat

www,driversunion.co 

And we predicted all this confrontation by head cam:

How head cams emboldens their users.

See: Police support head cam aggression

Make the head cam vigilantes conduct their own prosecutions.

So Holland & Cycling isn't at all healthy then!

The two justifications most used to impose cycling on the community at great cost,  together with a massive liability on essential roads infrastructure, is how poor we are in the UK facilitating safe cycling, especially compared to Holland, and the other is how healthy road cycling is.  Drivers' Union has already commented extensively about both myths. 

See: We challenge BMA  and BMA says cycling death is worth it all.   

And see: Europe cycling myth

Well now it is confirmed how cycling, which involves bad posture, unnatural pedaling movements, poor seating, hand pressures, very little suspension isn't so healthy at all.

See: Cycling causes chronic injuries  over and above the chronic injuries and death caused primarily because cyclists are.............well cycling.  Just see UK's 2016 cycling fatals for starters.

So yes there are much better and safer ways of getting exercise and I challenge BMA to deny it.

But here's the most devastating news: For all the successful demands made by UK's,tiny but far too powerful ,Cycle Lobby, for more money and more driver oppression and jail, it turns out, as we have consistently pointed out, UK's drivers are brilliant and the Dutch are killing more cyclists than we are.  Yes Holland, continually cited as cycling's Shangri La, aint as good as us at cyclist care. See it all here. Well I never!

So Boris Johnson, why have you screwed up London with hardly used and costly cycling Super Highways? 

So, Louise Ellman MP, why did you allow anti driver cyclists and profiteers to cause your Transport Select Committee to commit £650,000,000 per year to cycling without even asking appropriate questions?   See this disgraceful committee in action. 

And all of this is based on myth and lies.

Luckily HMG is back pedaling (pun intended) on cycling funding already, but how soon before the Super Highways are torn up?

What this is really all about is the anti driver, anti infrastructure anti people, Metropolitan Elitists who want us out of cars, on bikes, walking and on buses instead, because cars give us too much independence and freedom. Not sure about this? I suggest you read this.  

When will the sensible majority of MPs see that there are 35,000,000 votes among drivers and all 65,000,000 are depending on them: so ask why the tiny Metropolitan Elite of 'common purpose' are running us all? 

Fatal Four Victory?

Judging by the Tweet below, its seems we now have a Fatal 5  

You may already know that I have been challenging Fatal 4 for some time as 'speeding' actually cannot cause anything; let alone a road accident.

I was also concerned that accident causes such as careless and dangerous driving were excluded and so there should be a Fatal 5 that didn't include 'speeding' See our work here and also how I was accused of being vexatious and oppressive for making a complaint about this with the police.

I have still had no response from the NPCC or any appreciation for my concern expressed to them in this open letter 

And here is our original appeal to the Fire Service Also not even answered or acknowledged by them. 

Dave Webb

But now see this police Tweet:

Four cars out this afternoon covering Uttlesford (M11), Chelmsford (A12) & Maldon (A130) Aiming to target #Fatal5. pic.twitter.com/NAK7H8mLUc

— Colin Shead (@SgtColinShead) April 12, 2016

The most significant change is that 'speeding' has been dropped entirely and none of the five instructions claim to be 'fatal' since they are now merely instructions.

So I have been correct all along. 'Speeding' should never have been included in the Fatal 4 since, being false, it undermined the initiative. This Fatal 5 is much more acceptable now that 'speeding' has been dropped.

Any formal thanks from the authorities? Any apology for the nasty labels that North Yorks Police tied to me?

How about the authorities confessing that 'speeding' causes nothing? 

Well it all depends how sincere they are about genuine road safety doesn't it? Let's see. 

Oh so cyclists don't really want to 'share' roads with others then?

In this Evening Standard Story London cyclists are whinging about loads of joggers on their Super Highway.

The irony of many of their gripes, is that they are imposing exactly the same things on drivers whilst demanding to 'share' roads only when it suits them it seems.

Any of this sound familiar?

For 'Cyclists/bike riders' read drivers & for 'Joggers/runners' read cyclists. 

• "Cyclists/ drivers have complained about having to dodge large numbers of joggers/ cyclists."
• "Bike riders/ drivers are being forced to swerve [to avoid] runners/ cyclists" 
• "fear the joggers/ cyclists are creating a dangerous hazard and risking the safety of the route."
• “Most had personal stereos so calling out your approach from behind/using a bell/horn wasn’t heard."
• "God knows what its going to be like in the summer when all the fair weather runners/ cyclists emerge."
• "some joggers/ cyclists were running "three abreast" 

They are a very selfish breed who really aren't at all crucial for the rest of us. The irony of all this will be completely lost on them.

At least someone is making use of this costly white elephant while it lasts and until sanity has it removed.

Driver arrested in February, still not charged & re-bailed for further evidence.

In this Coventry Telegraph story A driver who was arrested after a horrid accident, primarily caused because an exposed human was in the road, on the 20th February, still hasn't been charged and on the contrary, re-bailed so that further evidence may be sought.

So, other than that the police have the power, why was he arrested in the first place? 

I have written to the Coventry Telegraph as follows: 

Hi,

We are very concerned about the regular and routine arrest of stressed and traumatised drivers after a horrid accident without evidence. In this case the driver was arrested on the 20 February, has still not been charged but re-bailed for further investigations. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/man-re-bailed-police-over-11133967

The routine and speculative arrest of drivers, who are in no fit state to comment, is clearly wrong and should be a major story. Unfortunately the only people to monitor this is local media who should ask, as part of the report, if these arrests are necessary and warranted on every such occasion.

In the meantime it is our advice to drivers under these circumstances to make no comment whatsoever at that time and especially without a solicitor present.

Perhaps you may take some interest in these arrests.

Wishes

Let's all badger local reporters to question the reason for these arrests to ensure that speculative arresting of non criminals is no longer an option for police.