Monday, 29 February 2016
Look at this story in the Derby Telegraph
I have no idea what isn't working at this bus stop.
However, if most of the fines are against people just dropping off passengers, then that would be unwarranted.
But notwithstanding the bus stop issue, what does concern me is the justification given by Peter Robinson, Chair of the Derby Climate Change Coalition Group.
He says: "anything which helps people to use buses has to be a good thing" He added: “We believe in having a good public transport system which makes it easier for people to get off the roads and move around so generally we support measures like this to improve bus lanes. “Transport like cars and aeroplanes create 80 per cent of greenhouse gases so getting people onto buses and trains makes an enormous difference. “There is an incredible amount that needs to be done to combat global warming and every measure like this to improve public transport helps.”
All of UK CO2 is only equal to less than 2% of all man made CO2 and by far the largest greenhouse gas is water vapour anyway. UK's cars only emit about 0.4% of man made CO2, which is incidentally a life giving and essential gas currently at an historic low. In any case, even Warmists are having to confess that there has been no warming for some 20 years.
What the Greens can't understand is that Derby, including its buses, depend on private motor cars to subsist.
What we cannot have is road traffic prosecution and policy based on bogus green anti driver ideology.
Its about time drivers voted out any local officials who support green anti driver policy including 20 MPH Zones, bus lanes, turn only lanes and cycle lanes on existing carriageway. Anti driver is so anti community.
Friday, 26 February 2016
I have already been able to cite individual police forces who are determined to pretend that 'speeding' causes accidents and are simply unable to confess or admit that when speed is extremely high, it's dangerous driving not speeding. See N.Yorks Police cannot acknowledge Dangerous Driving
If these so called 'extreme speeders' crashed and killed anyone, the charge wouldn't be Death by Speeding' See the three offences of speed here.
Look at these Tweets here:
And This NPCC release It starts off:Here at @PoliceChiefs & @ChiefGlosPolice refuse to acknowledge dangerous driving to promote speeding profiteering!. https://t.co/W01Dd5DleR— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 26, 2016
Speeding is an offence and officers will always seek to deal with it appropriately
But how soon it changes to talk about 'extreme speed' There is no such offence of extreme speed because the offence is dangerous driving.
This has been explained to Ms Suzette Davenport, Head of Roads Policing at NPCC in a carefully drafted appeal to police chiefs to be honest and trustworthy in the cause of road safety. See the appeal for honesty here Well it seems that she is prepared to promote false speed comment based on a non legal term. The dangerous effect of this is to deflect from what actually causes accidents and focus on those causes. Of course it does promote the lucrative Speeding Industry, even though NPCC & Suzette now know that 'Speeding' can cause nothing.
We did put Suzette to the test to see if she was prepared to face truth honestly for the sake of genuine road safety. It seems that she is still encouraging deception. While she does so, dangerous drivers are only being treated as 'Extreme Speeders' What is the Act & Section used against extreme speeders Suzette?
@PoliceChiefs 'Extreme speed'? That's dangerous driving & not 'speeding' @ChiefGlosPolice is admitting 'speeding isn't an accident cause!— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 26, 2016
@ChiefGlosPolice @PoliceChiefs Having detailed to you how speeding, simply to exceed a number cannot cause a reaction, you deny physics?>— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 29, 2016
It's about time Ms Davenport was stood down from a post for which she seems unable to understand the law and the objectives of it.@ChiefGlosPolice @PoliceChiefs > If your 'extreme speedster' killed someone it would be death by dangerous so why do you talk in riddles?— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 29, 2016
Monday, 22 February 2016
Yet again In this story here a citizen, who has been involved in a horrid accident, traumatised, in shock, and vulnerable, has been arrested.
Why is it that local media can tell us so much yet fail to establish an important aspect such as why a person has been deprived of their liberty under these dreadful circumstances.
'On suspicion of causing a death by dangerous driving' is merely the power of the arrest but not the reason or justification of it.
The reporters should at least ask the police and if they refuse to justify it, publish that fact at least.
It's always a worry when the report includes an appeal for witnesses which certainly adds to the impression of a premature arrest and then the immediate release on bail, as in this case, to a date several weeks hence.
Drivers can always be questioned under caution and interviewed later if necessary but how any comment, made when confused and in shock and trauma can be admissible in a subsequent trial is beyond me. Perhaps defence lawyers ought to start asking.
I have already raised the issue as to why the word 'accident' has been removed from Road Traffic Police vocabulary when road accidents fit the criteria of all recognised dictionarys and are still called accidents in the Road Traffic Act.See it all here.
I am already appealing to the NPCC to change this and police attitude towards drivers.See the full case here
One local paper has actually banned us for raising this, after complaints from the usual minority voices of the vicious anti driver cycling lobby.
See an example of the BBC cow towing to the same minority Here.
In the meantime, we can only advise arrested drivers not to comment at all about the accident without a lawyer present. Police will have to release them without comment at some point anyway. A court would understand shock and trauma under these circumstances.
By the way, when stopped by police, unless arrested, don't allow yourself to be sat in a police car and especially not locked in. Always politely decline and if the weather is poor, invite police to sit in your car instead.
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Drivers spend more on high streets, says study
19 February 2016
Motorists spend more money in two North London town centres than people visiting by bus, foot, or bike, a study has found. Consultant Regeneris was commissioned by the London Borough of Enfield to assess visitor spend in town centres on the A105, following concern that the council’s plans to introduce segregated cycle lanes along the corridor would harm local trade.
Regeneris reports that a January 2015 survey in Palmers Green discovered that car drivers accounted for 25.1% of visitors but 34.4% of spend. Bus passengers accounted for 30.4% of visitors and 29.2% of spend. Walkers accounted for 36.2% of visitors but 28.6% of spend and cyclists accounted for 1.1% of visitors but 1.3% of spend.
The contribution of motorists was even greater in the survey of Winchmore Hill town centre. Drivers accounted for 20.4% of visitors but 44.2% of spend whereas bus passengers made up 30.4% of visitors but only 20.8% of spend. Walkers accounted for 43.1% of visitors but 32.5% of spend. Cyclists made up 1.9% of visitors but only 1.2% of spend.
A 2013 survey of over 4,300 people in 14 town centres in the capital for Transport for London found that people who walk to town centres spent the most per month, followed by bus users, then train/Tube users, then car users and finally cyclists. Although the spend by bus users per visit was lower than motorists, train and Tube users, their frequency of visiting town centres was higher.
Council questions value of 20mph speed limits
19 February 2016
Councillors in Midlothian have agreed to retain a trial village 20mph speed limit but ruled out further schemes because of budget restrictions. A 20mph limit was introduced on streets in Lasswade village last March in a 12-month trial. The speed limit had been 30mph.
Monitoring of traffic speeds was conducted at seven sites, with data collected in both directions giving 14 results. Ricky Moffatt, Midlothian’s head of commercial operations, told councillors that just five of the 14 average speeds had changed by more than 1mph, and one of these saw speeds increase.
Before introducing the 20mph limit, 89% of vehicles travelled above 20mph. After its introduction 88% of vehicles still did so. The proportion exceeding 30mph did, however, fall from 29.5% to 24.2%. Moffatt said the data suggested there would be “over 5,000 potential speeding offences per day”.
The village civic society has lobbied for the 20mph limit to be made permanent, and suggested it should be supported by more enforcement and measures such as speed indicator devices or countdown signs. Said Moffatt: “Notwithstanding the positive comments from Lasswade District Civic Society with regards to the lowered limit, it is questionable as to whether extending these limits to other areas would be viewed as value for money, particularly given the council’s financial position.”
Councillors agreed to retain the Lasswade 20mph limit but noted there was no budget to introduce lower limits elsewhere
Friday, 19 February 2016
In this tweet
And I had commented#WHYRISKIT? Uninsured car removed by #Team3 #SYPRoadPolice driver has 9pts and lied to cops =#Court=#Disqalified pic.twitter.com/3V6u0aS57p— SYP Ops Support (@SYPOperations) February 18, 2016
At one time I ran a central London car pound. What a miserable job that was. It was at a time when credit cards were not accepted, cash or cheque with guarantee card only, and the removal crews were very mercenary. Spending most of their time playing cards in the canteen and only removing the easy quick ones in large numbers before the end of their shift to make it seem that they had been at it all day. This meant an office, mostly filled at the end of the day, with lots of sad and angry people, young kiddies in tow and babies in arms and with no means to pay to get their cars back.Given the cost of land, the liability to protect & care for seized vehicles, & their disposal, is it best practice? https://t.co/lsRA8az1fY— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 19, 2016
Space in London of course is at a premium. We were always struggling to make space for vehicles and at times were totally full. Part of my job was to keep track of these vehicles and some had been long forgotten, abandoned for years, gathering muck and dust and several of them were top of the range, like Rolls, Bentley or Jaguar seized as the proceeds of crime and so on. I decided to trace the history of these vehicles, track down the investigating officers to find out why we still had them and why they could not be returned to their lawful owners.
There was a Ford Transit van that had taken up valuable London space for about three years. When I queried this it turned out that it was a Detective Chief Superintendent's only remaining link with some long gone bank robbers. I pointed out that as every test, fingerprint, and photo had been taken at the outset, there was no reason to keep the van. We sold it but would've got much more for it three years younger.
In other cases, the owner had long ago been convicted and was now a guest of her majesty so why hadn't it been returned to his people or auctioned on conviction?
But costly space isn't the only problem. What about the depreciation and damage of an expensive car, seized as possible proceeds of crime, where the accused is eventually acquitted years later? Isn't he entitled to compensation for all damage and depreciation? I am sure he is. Some fraud inquiries go on for years.
Coppers really do have a mischievous joy in 'getting his wheels' mentality but in many cases, the villains have no concern about the old banger or stolen vehicle anyway, and just get another.
At the time I suggested that whilst art, paintings and jewelry accrue in value and take little space, they should be seized in preference to motors which are the exact opposite. As today, there was no-one in police management to realise any of this or care too much either. So here we are still 'getting their wheels and never mind the cost or liability'.
I imagine seized vehicles are now towed and stored by contractors for a large fee. How much is vehicle seizure costing police? Is anyone asking? Is it cost effective and best practice? Anyone checking if all auctions are straight and the best deal being achieved? No little favours being done for friends here and there? I bet our fast track and naive academic police managers have not even considered it.
Any police managers interested?