Over-sized, costly, unneeded tunnel vision Traffic Police

Death on the road from all causes is about 1800-2500 per year after about 300,000,000,000 driver miles. Compared to:

From NHS Failing 17000  Seventeen thousand

 From Smoking 112000  One hundred and twelve thousand.  Do we jail tobacconists? 

Prostate Cancer 10000 Ten thousand 

Breast Cancer 12000   Twelve thousand 

From NHS Thirst over 30,000  Thirty thousand. 

& From accidents in the home 4000 four thousand.

There are more deaths from strangulation, more from hanging and more from self harm than from any cause on the road.

See much more on this here.

So, that being the case, why is there so much of the Police Budget devoted to harassing, oppressing and prosecuting drivers?   

Although accident investigation seems justified, in fact it isn't cost effective and achieves very little, if anything. See does it kill more than it saves? You will see that even a Traffic Chief Inspector has no idea what these very costly, time consuming and killer road closures achieve. 

Then of course none of the technical and very costly kit the police use, 'to save life' they tell us, is donated or even supplied just at cost. 

See for example the new Drug Driving Kits Since these were introduced, many thousands of police hours and driver time has been lost on a massive witch-hunt; bearing in mind that if the total road death was less than 2000, death solely by drug or drink driving can only be in the lower three figures. How many more lives could be saved if all this cost was in the NHS, A & E or Emergency services.

To have some idea of what The Police are spending money on, just take TISPOL for example. A European Association of Traffic Police, run from the UK of course.

 Here is an example of one of their costly, all expenses paid conventions,  where they all  reiterate and salivate over bogus stats, polls and myths, in their pious way, while quaffing in bars, stuffing their faces all at our expense. Ching Ching.

Remember this is about less than 2000 deaths a year after 300 billion miles. How on earth can The Police afford all this?

When a police department is allowed to run away with itself it has to be inevitably to the cost of the rest of the Service. That is why I raised all aspects of road policing with the NPCC Head of Road Policing Suzette Davenport, who has no special qualification in roads policing, with a view to getting the ladies of the NPCC to see sense. So far the NPCC seems not to be interested in road safety or cost effective policing either. See the letter here.

It's worrying that our livelihoods on matters road safety are in the hands of three women. The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd MP,

Sara Thornton

Chair of NPCC Sara Thornton, Chief Constable, and Suzette Davenport Chief Constable (Roads Policing)  If none of these three are experts in roads policing, then they and UK's 35 million drivers, on whom all society depends, are at the mercy of profiteers, charlatans and self interests. We have now established the fraud & dishonesty of today's road policing

Suzette Davenport

Who is going to start dismantling this massive police White Elephant, and replacing it with much smaller and genuine traffic police units, from local bases, who will treat drivers as an essential resource instead of an enemy of The State?

Parent & child bully breed.

Ok I was in the wrong. Let's get that sorted straight away. However my wife and I are severely disabled. I have terminal spine cancer and literally cannot walk at all unless on sticks and then painfully slowly, and my wife has a progressive neurological disease as well as acute arthritis, angina and is a diabetic. 

I had had enough of being stuck indoors and was out with Mrs P on a rare trip around our local Lidl using my wheelchair. It's a lightweight jobby, even so, both of us can only just get it out of the car and set it up between us.  

Pulling into Lidl's massive car park all of the disabled bays, there are only three- in a retirement area known as 'God's Waiting Room'- were full. However, immediately adjacent to them was a vacant 'Parent & Child' bay. So I pulled onto it. We need to be as near to the premises as possible as well as to have extra space around the car and this advantage is afforded by these bays. 

Immediately after several horn blasts, I was accosted by a very animated young woman of the 'Croydon face lift variety'  who loudly and very rudely objected to our choice of parking space. The altercation went on for some minutes where it was obvious that, not only was she loud, fit and healthy, but her 'child' was a very upright useful lad of about ten years of age. Not a toddler requiring any unloading space at all or one that needed carrying either. 

Cardiff Mummy Read Cardiff Mummy on this subject. says:  'Does your ‘child’ have a car seat that requires the car door to be fully opened so that you can actually get it out of the car? Does your ‘child’ need help to climb into their car seat and to do up their seat belt? Is your ‘child’ prone to tantrums that see them arching their backs and refusing to get into their car seat, while you stand outside the car in the rain and the cold, trying to reason with them? 'No. I didn’t think so. So stop abusing these parking spaces'   

Later whilst wheeling myself around the store, I noted the young woman and her half grown man walking around and he big enough to carry shopping too. However rather than stay and enjoy the Boy's Toys section, I knew that such trash, with no respect for age and the disabled, are likely to win their day with violence against our very new vehicle so I returned to keep an eye on it. Now the last thing I needed on my escape was any sort of altercation whereby, having made the effort I could not even stay to enjoy the store.

It was then that I noticed that the next car to ours, on one of these bays, also contained a big 'child' and a male driver and was apparently awaiting another adult and toddler to return. What happened next was that a young fit woman, without any kiddies and just carrying two carrier bags, returned to the car which was then driven away.  

So clearly the attitude prevailing seems to be that, providing there's any sort of child in the car, that is licence to not only abuse the system but to abuse elderly people with severe disability too. I would swap my spine cancer with any of them if they would be so prepared.

It's not a valid point for these selfish parents to ask ' Would it be OK if I parked on a disabled bay?' because disabled are disabled. Their badges prove it. They are unable to cover distances so easily as young fit parents with prams and buggies can and from one day old to sixteen years, the definition of 'child' is subjective and open to abuse by the kind who, having produced kiddies, push their buggies at people of all ages and expect them to make way for them too. 

Perhaps there should be more thought about the layout, signs and rules for store car parks.

Why have 'Disabled Bays' and 'Parent & Toddler' bays at the same point? Fit parents, pushing prams, can easily walk across a car park. The disabled can't. 

Cardiff Mummy says: 'We don’t care if these wider spaces are at the back of the car park. We don’t care if we have to walk an extra few yards. Even in the rain. It’s all about the space around our car so that we can get our children in and out of the car safely and without damaging the vehicles around us. It’s also helpful if we have a safe walkway across the car park to the store and trolleys nearby.' 

Disabled would have no interest in any bays not near the entrance. So keep Disabled Bays near the entrance and P & C Bays further away. 

Take away the word 'child' and replace it with 'Baby or toddler' That makes the purpose clear just like the sign above.  

The image on this sign certainly isn't of a baby or toddler but of someone nearly as tall as the adult and so invites abuse.   

 Whereas this sign is very clear about the intent of the scheme. 

If we must have P & C Bays near the entrances then let's make them combined P & C as well as Disabled too, so that we retain exclusive Disabled Bays near entrances but make it clear that parents with children have no precedence over disabled at this place. 

It's interesting what Cardiff Mummy has to say: 'Of course I appreciate that there are people whose needs are greater than mine. If all the disabled bays were full, but someone with a blue badge genuinely needed a wide space with easy access to the store, then I would be the first to move my car out the way and offer them my space.'

In the meantime, no one has the right to rudely accost or rebuke others no matter what the rules or law say. If you think that a driver is breaking a store rule, then get the management to sort it out or just drive past and park up peacefully elsewhere. 

But the stores should revise their parking policy as follows. 

• Remove all references to 'Child'

• Separate disabled parking from others.

• Keep disabled parking near the store entrance 

• Allow disabled to also use Parent & Toddler Bays if they need to. 

• In retirement areas, provide more disabled bays.

All this shouldn't be necessary but respecting the elderly and disadvantaged are no longer a principle for all people sadly. 

@EastMidsDrivers Thanks for getting in touch, and we're sorry for this man's experience. We will pass his post on to our stores team.

— Lidl UK (@LidlUK) March 6, 2016

@LidlUK Thanks for that. Our suggestions on the blog would certainly assist disabled without loss to parents. https://t.co/NteziKiyTI

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) March 6, 2016

'Drivers spend more on high streets'

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. 

UK Drivers deserve to be exploited, cheated & treated as dregs of the earth

How often do we hear the mantra: 'Driving is a privilege not a right'? Here is a driving school spouting it. And here is an essay on it.

The reality is that, while the authorities can work on the basis that driving isn't a right, it's a privilege and even more than that, it is actually fun, then of course they can exploit, cheat, tax, oppress and incarcerate drivers with impunity and so they do. One only need explore the various topic labels at the top of this page to see the evidence of it and of course see the evidence amassed at www.driversunion.co if there is any doubt about the official corruption against drivers.

Here in this open letter to to Suzette Davenport, (head of road policing) and the NPCC,

we have put the whole corrupt case. I am glad to say that the NPCC are now treating this evidence very seriously.

But one only needs to look at the work of Fair Fuel UK

 on the extraordinary fuel duty imposed on drivers to gather that they are not seen as essential infrastructure and essential to the community who must be given priority and consideration for the service they are providing.

Then we have a whole corrupt anti driver profiteer's road safety industry, who even now are ranting about, already very low road casualty figures, about to rise. See RoSPA at it here. 

Predicted rise in road deaths https://t.co/lDPbxKdiqK we simply can't be complacent! @Road_Safety_GB @RoadSafetyWales RoSPA lower dd limit

— RoSPA Road Safety (@roadsafety) February 5, 2016

And predictably of course the green based anti drivers of 20s Plenty.

@roadsafety @Road_Safety_GB @RoadSafetyWales Actually we have been and are complacent. That why deaths have been flatlining since 2011.

— Rod King (@20splentyforus) February 5, 2016

@20splentyforus @roadsafety @Road_Safety_GB @RoadSafetyWales The flatline low is costing so much we're now killing more people off the roads

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) February 5, 2016

The insatiable Road Safety Industry, not only costly from its tax break financial support, but from the massive costs of interference and false road safety policy, is actually killing more people off the road from the pure economics of it all. We must look at road safety on a cost benefit basis and at the moment road safety is killing more people than it saves.   See some examples Here & Here & Here & Here

Pretending to be benign, cost-less and of high principle, most if not all of road safety policy is now based on a mix of profit, green anti driver ideology, and vested interests.   See here & Here and is so costly, that road safety is not cost effective and is now totally counter productive. ( Here they are exploiting a mere 49 more fatals after a low year and after 300 billion driver miles too. )

Not only does this result in more death when viewed from outside the road safety bubble, but an aggressive and totally unfair treatment of all UK's drivers. Drivers' Union have now been able to establish anti driver officials within police, councils and government. See some of it here & Here

Edmund King, AA President,

Edmund King

 confirms his anti driver status and what a fool he is, by equating road death with three airliner crashes.

1,780 killed on roads (yr end Sept 15) is equal to 3 big planes crashing with all passengers dying. If that happened we would see headlines.

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) February 4, 2016

Well, since planes wouldn't fly without their dependence on cars, road transport and drivers at all and don't tend to share their paths with opposing transport, humans, and animals, I have to ask drivers why they support the AA whilst he is their spokesman? Do we slow train and plane travel after terrible crashes & pretend cycling's a viable alternative Mr King? 

Part of the anti driver philosophy and strategy is to continue to promote cycling on an equal playing field basis with drivers. This is totally false. Explained here. 

Never is the oppression of drivers more apparent than in the manufactured and officially generated and condoned prosecution of hundreds of thousands of perfectly safe drivers every year with profit to third parties from it too, Example here. & Here and Even the AA in on it too. but that even the evidence required to jail drivers for long terms of imprisonment falls far short of that for any other crime. See

There are far too many spokesmen, politicians and officials interfering in road safety with no CV in the subject whatsoever. See here & here & Here

Drivers will deserve to be exploited, cheated and treated as dregs of the earth, whilst they allow the officials to treat them that way and reduce their importance to the community to being less than that of cyclists.

Resident's Parking Bays are anti driver & anti rate payer too.

Resident's Parking Bays: 

In this story over 7500 fines have been dished out to desperate drivers on behalf of people who wouldn't buy their own garage so expect to park on public roads. 

I paid a capital sum for my garage and frontage and pay far more than £25 per year in rates for not parking in the road.

Resident's parking bays are depriving other road users, who pay for all the roads, from using certain sections of them reserved for people who chose a property without a parking area.

The ownership of a property ends at the fence and does not include the street beyond it. There is no right to park a vehicle outside one's house and to do so for a period, not ancillary to a journey, is an offence of causing unnecessary obstruction.

Somewhere to park is always a deal breaker when selling a property, so the Council is failing its ratepayers in only charging £25 a year for this privilege for a start. 

Then what about the difference in value on sale of the property? Who gets to keep that? The council should assess the additional value of parking bays to a property and contract that such a sum will be returned to the council on the sale of these houses. 

The problem is caused by too many and unnecessary yellow lines around towns which could be turned into metered bays earning further revenue for the council and encouraging commerce.

Sir Peter

Unfortunately, because our councils are being run by anti driver ideologists who think their towns are islands that can run on pushbikes and public transport, drivers, tax payers, residents and businesses are the sufferers while these favoured residents are laughing all the way to the bank.

The Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby is polling the wrong people.

Here is the real objective: The scheme improves the parking situation for residents and the amenity of the area in general and encourages commuters to investigate alternatives to the motor car as a means of travelling to work.  This may or may not have an effect of property prices. So there it is. More anti driver anti car ideology in our Town Halls.

Roads, are all national and all used by any UK or foreign national. His parochial attitude is a classic example of a local official thinking too small. See an example of It here in the Mablethorpe story. 

Is your council giving away your land too cheaply? You are paying for all this so raise it with them.