Left & Right Wing. Who needs them?

Left Wing? Right Wing? A very ancient and old trick that has always worked for irrelevant and angry minorities and most of us fall for it.

It's really simple. Get your minority single issue group, whether right or wrong, to be considered equally as important as what really is valid and important, then every issue can be debated on the incorrect premise of two equal sides. 

For example: Look how much was achieved, by corralling a number of different Christian groups under the obsolete and irrelevant word 'Protestant'. The reality is that the last Protestant died some 500 years ago and of course whereas, Catholicism is a distinct religious faith, Protestantism is merely a Catholic word for all the others who are not Catholic. Thus was created the impression of two tribes, when in reality it was one tribe continually at variance with every one else. It works very well. Basically it elevates a single issue minority to the level of the majority. 

Probably the best and current example of this is the very powerful single issue minority Cycling Lobby and their contrived road war with UK's 35 million drivers. and their 'Two tribes'. On this occasion, here is AA's Edmund King employing the 'Us and them barrier'.

 King cited inflammatory twitter account He loves to foment a fictitious cycle war with this. Here he used it before the Transport Select Committee and they fell for it.

The reality is that whereas all 65 million of us depend on all drivers- society only needs walkers and drivers- cyclists are just a loud unneeded minority. By this ruse - of two tribes-, they have made themselves to appear as big and essential to the community as drivers are. So far that has worked too. 

So clearly it is a common and successful ruse for any lobby to act as if they are a crucial and creditable part of two sides and strangely, we all seem to fall for it.  

Now we have 'Hard or 'Soft' Brexit. They're at it again. See it here.

So what is Left Wing & Right Wing? Who get's to decide who is who? Surely reality isn't about Left & Right but just right & wrong isn't it? Don't we want our lives and society run on the basis of the best policy on any individual issue as opposed to an ideology? 

Like the non Catholics allowed themselves to be labeled with the Catholic word 'Protestant' (Proddy Dog) to their disadvantage, why do we readily accept the Left Wing description of those who disagree with them as being Right Wing? I am not Right Wing at all. 

The reality is that all Left Wingers are not individual original thinkers. They work to a mantra and are totally predictable on any issue. Climate Change, Fracking, animal testing, Nuclear Power, Motor Transport, cycling, nationality, migration, wind power, renewables, defence, drivers, Calais, and so on.

They are incapable of any original thought because all of them, at any age, are stuck in their sixth form adolescence whereas the majority of us grow out of it. 

Often claiming the moral high ground and supported by Church leaders, who seem to think that God expects us all to be mugs to be Christian. 

One of the tricks is to stage demo's, very often where a tiny amount of people can loudly cause maximum disruption, that appears to be representative of far more people than it really is. 

Yes Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square full of people looks a lot when in fact it's only about 0.007% of the Nation.

Media are the worst for promoting minority groups and allowing them as much air time, very often, dependent on the ideology of the presenters and producers, even more time than the majority view. in studio and phone in programs.

Of course zealots of any calling will turn out loudly in overwhelming numbers to state their case, albeit a totally unrepresentative one given the chance, and on the basis of 'two sides' and 'balance' will be handed a totally unrepresentative proportion of public access to jeer, cheer, boo, scream and cajole as is their preference. This isn't balance nor is it democracy either.    

Another common tactic by Left Wing, Green and single issue minority groups, is to invent nasty names and labels when they cannot make a rational case. 'Racist, fascist, sexist, denier' and so on. As a result, we have been running the UK on the basis of not being called silly names. See here. 
Remove silly names from their armory and the Left Wing amount to very little.

There is no opposite to Left Wing, simply because the rest can be infinitely variable and unpredictable on any given issue. Intelligent thinkers are simply not predictable.  So let's kill off this dangerous and unneeded 'Two Tribes' and settle for what's right and wrong. What the majority believe, issue by issue.  And to do that, we must listen to these people most too.

Theresa May for UK's 35000000 drivers? She's your problem mate.

Why allowing Theresa May,

who didn't support Brexit, to take over, will be bad for UK's 35 million drivers and have us back in the EU within ten years.

For the Conservatives to elevate the Remain Theresa May to lead us through Brexit would be an insult and betrayal of the Referendum, democracy and a Common Purpose, Metropolitan Elite snub to the UK and its people.

The Conservatives must understand that the Referendum wasn't just about Brexit; it was a rebellion of the public, in great numbers, in their first opportunity, against everything wrong in their lives and to which they have never had any say.

Theresa May represents the very rotten edifice of all that not only took us into the EU but kept us there too.

Clearly thinking that Brexit would be a loser, and David Cameron a winner and to remain as her boss, she supplanted her moral instincts for those of her instinctive political survival with a view to succeed him, and so hung her flag to his greasy Remain pole. She backed the wrong horse. Remain lost and Cameron stood down.

What a cheek. Realising it's now or never, and there's nothing to lose, she has put herself forward to lead the Conservative party on a road and journey for which she has no real interest.

So who is the Theresa May who now wants to lead the Government and its people from one of the most elitist bastions of Common Purpose? 

Given that this embryo rebellion of dissent was mostly about all the wrongs here at home as well as in the EU she has been our Home Secretary allowing most of it.

Let's understand this, if we do not tackle corrupt liberal elitism and Common Purpose at home, we may as well stay in EU since we will be back there pretty soon.

If the Conservative Party elect May as their leader, not only will they snub 17 million voters and UKs 35 million drivers, they will be putting Party before people. Are they that so short sighted?

Theresa herself saddled them with the term 'The Conservative Party is the nasty party' The very rhetoric of the unrepresentative left wing haters of normal people. That's how the Metropolitan Elite operate. Call the normal 'extreme' or a list of other common insults, and before we know it, we're all falling over ourselves not to be normal. When individuals fall for it is bad enough but to run a country to please silly name callers and banner headline writers is a dereliction of responsibility.

I am not about to attack any single issue group; especially Gays. But what I do attack is single issue groups being forced on us by and within public institutions. It fosters dissent and protest from the majority who are then told to shut up and worse, even be prosecuted for protesting. That is Common Purpose and liberal elitism in action. Theresa May represents that.

Just complaining about our police being made to look silly and unrepresentative now draws bile and abuse. And yet this is what our police have become under May   I am likely to be abused or even arrested for raising it under May. There will be no outrage when I am assaulted  and threatened for it because this country has not stood for 'Stale, pale, male' and his wife and family for many years.

That's what Brexit was all about. A revolt against the whole rotten Common Purpose edifice that got us there and kept us there, and Theresa May was part of that.  

Seriously; is this  how the majority wish to see their police?

 Of course the new age Piccie, tweety, selfie silly social media nonentities may justify it as 'it's nice' but we don't pay police to be nice, to abuse our uniform and property on a selective single issue basis. Whatever they do off duty and out of our uniform is fine by me. 

I also resent having to pay for these special interest groups within the police too. They are divisive; we just want one type of copper; happy, well paid and doing the job with advancement based on meritocracy and nothing else. It seems this isn't May's ideal at all. 

When I served, we couldn't use police property or write anything public as police without consent for very good reasons. Nothing reveals the mindset, often anti driver, than police, especially senior ones. tweeting without checks. So there's another May failure as Home Secretary. Too much PR policing and tweeting instead of actual policing. 

Theresa can call me 'nasty'  for saying what 99% of the nation, and I imagine of the police service feel, but if I didn't have a strong sense of what's right and what the majority want to read, then I wouldn't be writing this.  

Attack UK's drivers and you attack the community:

More important, than the EU, believe it or not, for the ordinary family is their transport, their motor car, and their driving. Look how under Theresa's watch, the oppression and corruption of policing UK's drivers has flourished.

Just look at our two sites Drivers Union and This blog site. Both are full to the brim with the dishonesty, profiteering and ideology against road safety and driving. None of it is opinion and much actually points fingers at powerful individuals and associations. Just pick any Topic Label on this blog to see how corrupt it all is.

How do we get away with it if it's untrue? Surely if we are wrong, we should be told why. Yet we are not even challenged by any authority on it.

Even the exploitation of bereaved families are used to sustain speeding profiteering under May. See the case here

This open letter to the Head of Roads Policing  which contains much of the whole sordid story is still unanswered, under Theresa May, even though it's asking for good road safety ideals and less profiteering from driver oppression. 

Here, from our sites,  are some samples of Common Purpose anti driver ideology that May has ignored or allowed against noble people. 

If it wasn't careless before fixed penalty fixed penalty cannot make it so'

Illegal and fraudulent speed courses

Police use bereaved to falsely promote speeding revenue

Using cyclists to curtail driving

Britain under Theresa May. 



Theresa's message?  Moonies to the normal people




Police playing games with our lives.

Why are drivers arrested when in shock and trauma

So Theresa May proves to be just like her Boss David Cameron whose policies pandered to the anti driver minorities of the liberal elite and Common Purpose and also demanded longer jail terms for accidents too.

Michael Gove has said he isn't just going to fiddle around with minor adjustments to make things appear to comply with Brexit. He is going to change all the enemies within that got us there and kept us there. That is what we must do. We must clear out the old musty ideology of the left, not be afraid to say the unspoken word and clean Britain up from bottom to top. 

We must start by making media and the police more patriotic and representative of the Nation. No more 'Jairmany Calling, Jairmany Calling.' Haw Haw Broadcasting Co media and policing against the community. Under Theresa May that's how it's been.

It says it all that The Guardian and BBC want her to lead us. 

Are the Conservatives really thinking of keeping us in a May La La Land ? 

They have a choice. Share the nation's votes with five other parties under a tired old loser, or kick off with 17 million votes by fully supporting Brexit and giving the UK back to the little people who actually keep it running.

If Conservatives select Theresa May Ukip will be fighting them at every election. Is that what they want? Will they grasp this nettle?

A message to the young.

Dear young people. Let me put your mind at rest about leaving the EU.

I am 76 and only have a short time to live so I can assure you my vote to remain wasn't for me it was for you.

I suppose you may think that my two sons at 50 are too old to have a say too, but they have, hopefully at least another twenty five years to live in this country. Unlike you however they did live before the EU and will tell you how good it was.

Can you imagine how painful it is for us, your own old people, that you are happy to place your life and future in the hands of lots of (warning nasty forbidden trigger word next) foreign old people in the EU that you don't even know and don't care for you so much as we do?

But why just rely on us? Ask your American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, young cousins how they are managing outside the EU? Ask them if they'd wish their country to be governed by by foreigners in Europe? Then ask yourself why you want your country ruled by European foreigners too?

Yes of course there's going to be uncertainty but what is happening now is a contrived chaos by nasty bitter undemocratic losers. They gave us a referendum and now because they don't like the result are disrupting Government and Parliament instead of uniting with Britons to make this work. It is they who are trying to destabilise democracy and so they're the real enemy of your future. See them here at work So these are the people that you should be angry with: Even more so because they are manipulating and exploiting you to overturn the wishes of the people.

What they are trying to do now, is to force us back into the hands of the very same foreign strangers who have no care for you, by leaving under EU rules against our best interests.

After forty years of paying our dues, we have earned the right to leave when we are good and ready and that may take a few years. 

When the Remainers demand that we leave right now, ask them why, as they didn't want to leave at all until the 23 June? Well I'll tell you why. They want us to fail, to crash, and one way to do that is to get us to jump out, unprepared, under EU rules.

Remember we didn't vote to leave under EU terms but on our own terms. Why would anyone, who's concerned for the UK, wish otherwise?  More on those people here

But the best thing for you, your kids and your country is to uphold democracy and for people of all ages and persuasions to unite and make it work. Only UK's enemies don't want that.

Keith Peat. 

The 85%tile rule was dropped so that Green anti drivers can screw UK.

So what was the 85%tile rule of setting speed limits?

Well basically we used to set speed limits scientifically and sensibly instead of on a totally arbitrary, Nimbyist, green political, subjective basis that we use now. In those days the strap line 'It's a limit for a reason' did have some merit. Now such claims are totally false. 

Let me say I am able to say this because, unlike virtually everyone else in this green and pleasant land, I have surveyed, at my own time and expense, lots and lots of speed limit orders. Most I have surveyed have not been introduced for any other reason than at the request of some local Councillor to please a dozen local voters. I have not studied one single Speed Limit Order that includes an accident history to justify it, and none where accidents were caused specifically because the speed limit was too high.

Here's the proof.

We used to set limits on a scientific basis, the 85%tile Rule, which had served the country well for many many years. It's main advantage was that in no way was it subjective and open to political abuse, profit creation, and ideology. What we did was to measure the average speed that the majority of drivers, excluding the fastest 15%, were choosing for that section of road. This included the slowest and most pedestrian of drivers, excluded the fastest and the limit was set to the nearest round number, so that at 34 MPH the limit would be 30MPH and so on. And it worked very well.  

Drivers' Union had this to say in a submission to the Enquiry on the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool in 2012:

 'However the 85% tile rule that applied until the speed limit review of 2006, and still being implemented, was the nearest sensible formulae that could be applied in setting limits and was so applied for many years entirely successfully until its abandonment, for spurious economic reasons by a non-expert too. 

Whilst the abandonment of the 85% tile rule saved local time and money, in road safety, the usual constraints on finance should never be applied or considered. 

However, as previously discussed, the cost of arbitrary, unscientific speed limiting at £3,000,000,000 per 1 MPH and the social costs of drivers losing their jobs too don’t seem to have been considered.

speed-limiting-review submission

Of course the 85%tile Rule wouldn't have allowed blanket speed limiting, as in 20 Zones, but 20 limits where drivers were showing they were appropriate and safe. Unfortunately the Green, Anti Driver, Anti Community Lobby, who do not see roads and streets as crucial infrastructure but more like play grounds, could not control our streets against a sensible formula so it has been abandoned.

The result is blanket limits where accidents were not happening, speed limits set for profit, major infrastructure slowed and hampered, and many thousands of perfectly safe drivers prosecuted for profit. They have been aided and abetted in this by no less than the Transport Research Laboratory,  who claim to be independent but who we now have linked to Green anti driver groups. Read it here.
 
A classic example of an unscientifically set limit

See TrL bogus numbers for 20 Zones here.

I have just come across this article against the 85% tile system because it 'makes it harder to change speed limits' Read it here

Ok so without reading it, the strap-line says what it's about. The 85% tile stops ideology, anti driver green and profiteering policy from imposing bogus speed limits on us and they don't like it. 

Here is some of it:  

• 'because neither officials nor engineers really set speed limits. Drivers do.' 
•  'the way we decide how fast people should drive is through something called the 85th Percentile Theory.'
• 'it assumes drivers are 1) reasonable and prudent, 2) want to avoid a crash and 3) want to get to their destination in the shortest possible time.' 
• “Why don’t we design our roads for the speed we want people to go?'
• “We get requests to look at speeding in neighborhoods and we take a look at 25 mile an hour streets and thirty mile an hour streets and they generally come out about the same 85th percentile speeds,” Bollich said. “That’s just kind of more evidence that just lowering the speed limit won’t necessarily have a large impact.” 'These kinds of studies can stop a proposed speed limit change right in its tracks.' And so on.

So according to these anti driver academics, drivers actually driving with a view to not having a crash, ruining their car, injuring themselves and others or not wanting to be prosecuted, can't be trusted, but local politicians, vested interested groups, green ideology and profiteers can be trusted. 

So here are the reasons for dropping the 85%tile and in the UK since 2006, the anti driver green profiteers have flourished and UK's crucial infrastructure is being made ever slower, against the interests of the economy and the community.

There is a cheaper alternative though. Involve the top police drivers in verifying a speed limit. All they need to do is drive the route at safe speeds to ascertain what is a fair, reasonable and efficient speed for the road and, as experts, over-rule any inappropriate proposal. That has to be far better than UK speed limits being set politically by non experts, Greens and anti drivers as they are now surely.  

My Petition says: 

'Reinstate the Eighty Five Percentile Rule for setting speed limits. We used to set speed limits scientifically and sensibly instead of on a totally arbitrary, Nimbyist, green political, subjective basis that we use now. In those days the strap line 'It's a limit for a reason' did have some merit. Now such claims are totally false. The abandonment of a scientific method has resulted in blanket speed limit areas where accidents are not happening, speed limits set to please minority local interests, the over-slowing of crucial infrastructure, the prosecution of many perfectly safe drivers by virtue of arbitrary speed limits and a profitable Speeding Industry. '  An arbitrary Speed Limit Order: http://driveeastmidlands.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/and-here-is-basis-of-high-earning.html Drivers' Union Speed Limit Submission: http://bit.ly/23zqtCC

Sign the petition now to restore scientific speed limits here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129756

Still not sure? Read this for more info:  

No cars & not surviving past 30

See how climate alarmists use numbers to deceive.

Why The Greens mustn't run our roads.

       

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. 
. 

How the Warmists and No Warmists can both be correct.

So NASA tells us that 2014 was the warmest year in 134 years, but no-one is denying that the planet hasn't warmed for some 18 years too so how can both statements be correct?

Well here is how both can be true.

But read what sort of a blip or spike are they talking about?

And here scientists challenge the numbers.

TfL no brainer green consultation.

In this consultation Tfl are enticing the public into very costly and counter productive emission policy. Like all polls and surveys they are set up as a no brainer questionnaire. Of course there's loads of vested interest such as lots of perfectly good scrapped vehicles and new technology to be sold. And let's just ignore the increased pollution, loss of energy from scrapping and producing replacement vehicles and not least the massive loss to the economy by doing it too, but hey ho!

Of course we love fresh air, but don't let's entirely overlook that the population lives longer because of road transport, or, to put it another way, most of us would die without it and that's very unhealthy isn't it?

I have done the survey and the only thing I have supported is restricting these ideas to the public transport vehicles since they are a major beneficiary of less and more restricted private vehicles.

These proposals do not acknowledge that life expectancy is increasing and without motor vehicles and drivers, London and people would die in large numbers. So in effect motoring is healthy yet policy is always based on an anti driver negative ideology. That is what is behind most policy nowadays. What will be the economic downside to these proposals and what will be the knock on effect on the community? 

Climate change? All of UK's total CO2 output is less than 2% of all man made CO2 of which all of UK's motor transport is about 0.7%  In any case C02 is an essential element and we are currently at an historic low when the planet was much lusher and vibrant at about 4 times this level. There is still no evidence that climate change is caused by mankind at all. It is worrying that TfL are including this as an object when it is so dishonest. 

Why not do the survey and vote against it? Even if you never drive in London, what they get away with other cities and towns will follow.

Take the survey Here

Pot Holes. Letter of the week.

I must disagree with Councillor Richard Davies when he says that 'Pot hole capital' (22/10) is due to 'generations of under- investment'. Our roads collapsed in one sustained period of extreme cold weather over a period of just one month, January 2011. and not over a long period as he suggests. I raised this then on my web site and the page is still there to this day. We should all be asking why this happened? Our roads never used to collapse like this. They dont in Alaska, Scandinavia, Eastern Seaboard of the USA or Iceland do they? So what has changed? Don't tell me that officials, in a total belief in global warming, have been laying cheaper Mediterranean surfaces have they? These roads, which retain pockets of water are fine for warm climates but are totally unsuited for northern climes when retained ice would expand within the road and break it up.

If I am correct, not only would this mean that our roads would need to be re laid in their entirety but by a much more costly and once abandoned method too. This is why I said in January 2011, our 'Third World killer roads are to stay'. And if I am correct, there should have been wholesale dismissals in all our county councils too. It isn't difficult to imagine a cover up under these circumstances; especially when valid questions are not being asked by politicians.

Councillor Davies should really be looking much closer to home for the culprits; it's all too easy to blame central government at times. Why and how did this happen?

Ref: http://bit.ly/yvjSWg

Wishes

Keith Peat

Drivers' Union

Attack on drivers by two green left wing groups in one week. Coincidence?

Sustrans, as its not too imaginative name implies is all about sustainable transport. To you and me that means back to the horse and bullock and Oh yes and of course manpower transport.

What these greeny left anti people people, oh yes yet another charity, can't accept is that, from the time we took to the horse, camel, bullocks, many thousands of years ago, we ceased to rely on running and walking to expand and thrive. The pedal cycle is only a very recent idea and for a short time in the last century, did allow some independent, although very confined and limited, transport options for those who couldn't afford their pony and trap or a motor car. Those days are long gone and because cycling really isn't a viable option to most, most simply don't do it and all who do are still, directly or indirectly, dependent on drivers and their motor cars.

No surprise that Sustrans managed to dig up 5% of only 470 parents to say this week that their child had been hit by a vehicle, 18% had experienced vehicles not stopping at crossings and 13% that their child was 'nearly hit by a speeding car' See it here.

So according to Sustrans, we are to conclude that about one million kiddies have been hit by a vehicle? About 3.6 million have experienced failures to stop at crossings? Bearing in mind that is totally subjective and without accidents to back them up and get this, about 3.2 million were 'nearly hit by a speeding car'. How subjective is that? 'Nearly'? 'Speeding'? 

After 300 billion driver miles in 2012, with kiddies being encouraged to mix and mingle with big machinery by people like Sustrans, only 33 were killed whilst walking or cycling. Yes '1 is 1 too many' we know but we don't know the cause of these accidents for starters and the anti car brigade, like Sustrans, ignore that since motor vehicles keep all of us alive, including about 20 million kiddies 33 must be read in that context. The only way Sustrans can shock is to misuse these tragic deaths, link them together as if a classroom of kiddies, like Dunblane or Aberfan for example and then postulate the shock as if it were. 'if a whole classroom of children had been killed under other circumstances there would be public outcry,' they say.. How low can the anti car lobby get? 

Hot on the heels of that blatant dishonesty comes a left wing green think tank, titling itself Institute for Public Policy Research, (IPPR)

and a very costly anti driver report written by a lawyer not a scientist basically explaining why we must get out of our cars and be taxed more if we don't. IPPR boast a staff of 40 and yes, yet another green anti people people pro windmill charity too. See the full report here

Again lots about how unhealthy vehicles are and indeed so much science for a lawyer too. He cites people like Professor Steven Glaister a professor of RACF who said in one report 'There's more young people killed on roads than by hanging themselves or being murdered' Yes right prof we certainly hope so.  An example of Steven here.

But just like Sustrans, the report fails to mention that life expectancy is going up not down and without drivers and their cars, our society collapses big time and nearly all of us would die. Not healthy at all. It fails to mention that, after three hundred billion driver miles a year, there's more death from accidents in the home than from any cause on the roads. It claims that man is responsible for climate change when he isn't and exaggerates UK's transport contribution to global man made Co2 which is actually only about 0.6% of all man made Co2. It blames drivers for pot holes too. This wasn't from 'wear and tear'. It was local officials following the global warming mantra and laying cheap Mediterranean roads which retain moisture so that any deep freeze expands the water and breaks up the roads. Our roads didn't use to collapse in big freezes. How rich then for the greens to try to blame drivers for their policies.

Congestion? Yes that's the drivers fault too. Of course it's nothing to do with ideological anti driver policy of bus lanes, turn only lanes, lengthened traffic light phases, and worst of all, closing off legitimate alternative routes and funneling traffic to the same choke points then? 

Obesity? Yes that's driving's fault too. Nothing to do with diets and computer games and TV and no after school activity. This report believes that tipping kids out of cars and onto the roads is a safe healthy idea. There are other much safer ways of being healthy and getting exercise. 

But since it is drivers, at great personal cost as the report acknowledges, keeps our society running, so what if, having done all that, a driver doesn't walk to his local shop? Don't let's feel guilty about using our cars; we are paying too dearly for it already. 

It really beggars belief that we are allowing all these non expert anti driver green charities to exist. Who paid for this anti driver nonsense? Why, the drivers of course.  

But what is sinister about this left wing green report is that it recommends its changes are handed to local authorities instead of central government. Divide and rule you see. 'And we must not allow any referendums on this' it says too. Oh and surveys must be rigged to get the right answers. And it goes on to state that then, anyone opposing it, 'can validly be accused of wilful fiscal irresponsibility..'  Just like 'Climate change deniers'

Wake up UK's drivers. Expose this crowd and the profiteers who feed from them. See road safety fat cats here

'Thanks also to a number of civil servants from across the government who engaged with me over the course of the project.' 
Says the author. May we inquire who these civil servants are?

20 zones: So now Birmingham creates driver tickets just for not being green!

Are we the only people to have realised that speed limits are being used for green issues?

The reason to limit a motorway to 60 MPH wasn't for accident reasons but pure environmental reasons. So you get a ticket there for not driving green? 

This is the basis for 20 zones. Living streets. Peace and quiet. Listen to Rod King of 20s Plenty Group, an MBE already for feeding the speeding industry, and he invents terms that are not in the Road Traffic Act like 'residential  streets', Streets are there to carry essential infrastructure. Motor transport. In Rod's world he must think we run on bullock transport.

But Rod has just boasted about a 'health chief' supporting 20 zones. In fact it's only the head of Birmingham Health Dept. A doctor who has no CV in road safety, driving or prosecution and who looks suspiciously like a classic cycling buff too. See the story here.

I have posted this to their site: 

As a police road driving expert: I can confirm that road safety will be impaired by 20 zones, especially where accidents are not happening. This is mainly because in such congested areas with people, children, cyclists, animals, parked cars, we experts prefer drivers to drive to the circumstances through the windscreen and not to a number on a pole. 

In these areas drivers are already selecting speeds lower than 20 MPH; the Idiot drivers simply Will not be altered.

What CV in driving: and road safety and prosecution does Dr Phillips have in this subject? 

Basically would you prefer your kiddie hit by half a ton of metal doing 20 MPH or not at all by a driver who had already taken account of the circumstance and seen the child?

As an expert, with the appropriate CV I challenge the Dr and query his qualification and Indeed his motives too. Will you now publish an expert's opinion?

As to health: Has the Doctor missed the fact that without all motor transport, including private, we would all die very rapidly from lack of basics? No water, food,heat and light, no NHS, no emergency services and certainly no Birmingham Council
either? Not healthy at all then.

 In fact the faster mankind got, and our societies were never built on manpower driven transport, so our life expectancy has risen.

But no speed limit should be based on health and emissions but only road safety. It means we have indirectly moved from prosecuting drivers for road safety to prosecuting them because they are not green enough.

The Dr looks like a typical cycling buff. May I enquire what his demographic is? If he is a green policy supporter and keen cyclist then that should be declared shouldn't it?

I will use this reply for our web site and blog. What on earth is a medical doctor doing commenting on a road safety issue at all if he has no background in it?