Parliamentary Advisory Council Transport Safety. Don't they sound grand?

Although they sound very important and official, PACTs is nothing more than another self appointed tax relief quango and profitable roads safety charity that Parliament

 takes very seriously for some reason, even though they are really a lobby group for all sorts of road safety profiteers. Get  some idea of what we mean here And here you can see more of the bogus road safety profiteer vested interests too.

One major issue I have always raised in road safety is that it's the only life and death activity, with the addition of mass prosecution, where we allow every Tom Dick and Harry with no CV in the subject such a major say on it all. This opens the door for charlatans, profiteers and ideologists to run major infrastructure to the danger of the public and at massive disadvantage to the economy and community. 

There is no question that this is now how our roads are being run and as a result people are dying who shouldn't be, and many thousands of drivers are being oppressed, harassed and prosecuted who shouldn't be. 

We should have much more efficient and less costly road safety than we currently have and yet there are multi billions being wasted on anti driver ideology; most of which stops not one single accident. 

PACTS are very much the UK leaders in all this. 

They fail to acknowledge undoubted accident and casualty causes that would be cheap to address and yet promote profiteering from non accident causes.

They refuse to acknowledge that without all of UK's drivers, particularly the private car driver, our society and economy would collapse totally and that in their focus on low road casualties, many caused by a refusal to address causes, they ignore that drivers actually keep all 65 million of us alive. 

PACTS have dishonestly compared road casualties with their favoured Rail and Air casualties, ignoring that, unlike roads, planes and trains do not share paths with opposing traffic, animals, and humans mingled in. More importantly, they do not count casualties of road journeys specifically part of a rail or air journey as rail and air casualties. Rail and air journeys start from the home not just from a terminus.  

Here is some more on PACTS.

http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!pacts-chart/cfqs

http://driveeastmidlands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/pacts-not-satisfied-with-casualty.html

Here's PACTS exploiting grief and lots more.

Now look at this sequence of PACTS Tweets to me on all this. 

A host of medical professions, road safety charities, motoring groups and emergency services support a #lowerlimit | https://t.co/s9WYmKrQhe pic.twitter.com/h90GKtpGt6

— IAS (@InstAlcStud) October 10, 2016

@InstAlcStud @R_S_P_H @Allianz @roadvictims @racfoundation @IAMRoadSmart @UK_AHA @PFEW_HQ @TheBMA @PACTS Vested interest, ideology, & no CV

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) October 10, 2016

so what does @EastMidsDrivers recommend to reduce drive deaths?

— PACTS (@PACTS) October 10, 2016

@PACTS How about less of this? https://t.co/HmFL5XBp5o

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) October 10, 2016

@EastMidsDrivers - entirely unhelpful and unconstructive as usual

— PACTS (@PACTS) October 10, 2016

@PACTS You're the people who frauduelnetly don't count road accidents, solely part of rail & air journeys, as air & rail casualties.

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) October 12, 2016

@EastMidsDrivers Oh dear. Insults, ignorance, paranoia - no room for dialogue

— PACTS (@PACTS) October 12, 2016

@PACTS You refuse to discuss proven expert fact & valid points but call that paranoia instead. If it's so untrue sue me.

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) October 14, 2016

So all the evidence, facts, research on these three massive sites is 'Paranoia' according to the bogus road safety profiteers exposed within. 

www.driversunion.co
www.DriveEastmidlands.com
www. https://sites.google.com/site/driversprotestunion/

These Tweets prove PACTS' attitude to fact and clear evidence provided on the basis of independent non vested interest expertise. Perhaps you may be able to get your MP to inquire into the activities and objectives of this group.  

Why is everything to do with roads, driving & road safety run by women?

Look OK, we can mess around with feminist equality to a point, but not when it comes to driving and road safety.

                 Magnificent Seven

Generally, women are far too emotional when it comes to things like speed, road safety, driving and overtaking and casualties to be objective about it and certainly don't tend to normally involve themselves with anything mechanical or technical either. Those things are usually better understood by what feminists call 'Stale Pale and Male' In a previous blog, see it here, I demonstrate this and how SPAM has been totally excluded from governance too. 

What do these seven women have in common?

Add caption

Liz Truss Minister of Justice Lord Chancellor

Amber Rudd Home Sec.

Sara Thornton Chair NPCC

Theresa May. PM Ex Home Sec

Suzette Davenport

Well none of them have any CV or experience in top class driving and yet they are all running UK's roads, drivers and driver justice between them.

Suzette Davenport is not interested in genuine sensible road safety, read more of her here and together with CPS & Alison Saunders brought in a misuse of fixed penalty where, for the first time in its history, was turned from absolute objectivity to a catch all subjective method for police, on a whim, to avoid justice. See here.

Theresa May, now PM but prior to that was Home Secretary in charge of police. See this about her days as Home Secretary here, 

Where single issue anti driver lobby groups thrived and together with Suzette Davenport and Sara Thornton (Head of policing), police have been encouraged to promote single issue minority lobbies at the expense of the majority. 

Louise Ellman, left wing pro cycling chair of Transport Select Committee. Here there is no better example of a naive women being taken advantage of by snake oil salesmen and giving away £650,000,000 per year of taxpayer's cash. And here, under Ellman, her committee ignore honest expert evidence to promote road safety dishonesty.

The problem with women in a male domain is that they are wide open to the Charlatans and frauds. That is why UK supports a multi billion pound profit based road safety industry and much of it is illegal, corrupt and very dangerous.

It won't occur to these women that we now have a Road Traffic Empire, way and above anything we need that is taking so much from police budgets that the police are suffering from it, never mind the money that could be spent saving lives elsewhere like NHS & A&E. Genuine profitless road safety would save more too. See why here. And look at this newly invented international Traffic Association, by our traffic boys, where they can go off on costly bun-fights, to listen to anti driver frauds and profiteers such as Edmund King of the AA for example. (Remember him fooling Louise Ellman's Committee?) Well here is an Example of Edmund making money from fraudulent awareness courses.

Under these naive women, these bogus road safety people have even been getting honours; Like King's OBE for example.

Ok so the case is made. The evidence is indisputable. Roads, Drivers, prosecutions, policing, road safety, is all in the hands of the most unsuitable, vulnerable and naive people society could have chosen.

Saunders, Davenport & Thornton should not be in their posts and policing must go back to represent and reflect what normal ordinary majority would want. Fixed penalty must be restored to its original purpose, confined to the objective & absolute. Most careless driving fixed penalties could not be proven at trial. This was such a gross mistake that those who were behind it must stand down. 

Liz Truss, and Amber Rudd are new enough to be given a chance to kick out all common purpose policy and make roads infrastructure and drivers a priority because we need them. They must listen to experts with no axe to grind.

Ellman needs to stand down. Like all left wingers, she hasn't moved on from adolescent naivety and predictable ideology and is thus not suited for the role. 

Under these women, our 'hard up' police are able to attend expensive anti community conferences too.

See this one.

And this one too.

Theresa must man up. More SPAM in Government please. 

For the idiots who think they can live without cars.

This ruinous bullying of major infrastructure, 35000000 servants of the community, by a tiny unneeded minority assisted by Metropolitan Elite Common Purpose Police, is against all of us. It must be stopped. The Highways are our arteries not their playground.

The context of my observations is in a scenario where cyclists are demanding more and more very costly changes which can only be a disadvantage to drivers but in addition the cycle lobby is also demanding more punishment and jail time for drivers too. So therefor it is right to enquire two aspects. 

1) If it's that risky and dangerous now, should it continue? That then leads to 2) defining what is essential for the survival of the community and our society as a whole? When you do that you realise that there are only two. 

If we didn't walk we would all perish, so pedestrians are a no brainer. A little more explanation for the next class; drivers.  However the term 'driver' is thousands of years old.  Let's totally dismiss anti driver cycling nut Carlton Reid's, Roads Weren't Built For Cars, as the nonsense propaganda that it is. See it destroyed here. 

Manpower travel simply wasn't good enough so man took to the horse-the predecessor to the motorbike- then chariots, carts, wagons, traps, pony mail, fast stage coaches etc. From those came our bigger societies all built and based on long distance fast heavy haulage and passenger transport. Without it even railways wouldn't exist. From the 50s onwards all this was replaced totally by the more efficient modern fast, load carrying road transport of today. Because that was cheaper, more efficient and readily available, society spread out and expanded. Everything now depends on road transport, including rail & air travel. Less obvious the private car. It is the essential link between public transport but also how the majority of its staff get to their jobs. Out of town shopping precincts to enable once a week big household shopping because women work too and we have freezers. These places depend for their turnover on car users, surrounded by mass free car parks and cheap fuel to encourage it. The NHS staff car parks all full, the water workers, food and power suppliers, without that we all die very soon and they're all dependent on cars. Unless you sleep on a railway platform, cars are the essential link to rail, likewise airports. So we have identified two essential road users.

Cycling however didn't build or ever sustain our society. In fact if all cyclists packed in, the economy and society generally wouldn't collapse at all or hardly notice. Does society depend on cyclists? No! Did it ever? No!

But the road safety record of UK's drivers actually shows how good they are and not how bad they are. Your analogy of archery, is the same as shooting at targets too. But neither are allowed in public are they?

I am continuously pointing out that the evidence is that cyclists are being treated in a patient, sensible manner all the time. But whether you understand it or not, they are a liability to an essential road user and very often don't even acknowledge how much care is being shown to them. 

Drivers being human and very average too, make mistakes and get things wrong. What a cyclist feels too close, is often not close from the drivers' perspective. The cyclist's insecurity is actually his brain telling him 'This is bloody dangerous' and carrying on regardless. Perhaps it's time that we accepted the natural instinct is absolutely right about that and hearkened to the brain.

See anti driver pro cyclist police cheating against drivers.

See evidence of pro-cyclist police ideology. 

Tweeting exposes today's anti driver single issue lobby police.

There can be no better insight into police policy and thinking than when they expose themselves in un edited, uncontrolled Tweeting at all levels.

Because we now have a police service dominated by the UK Metropolitan Elite, See who is running the police. all police are now encouraged to communicate and be available to all media on a one to one basis, so that we now have police TV stars from all forces and police competing in their own top police Twitter awards. 

Now it may seem right to this new breed of management to market the police as if it is some sort of business and speak to the people at their level on their medium but it isn't. 

The police isn't a 'ya right on' popularity contest to be marketed like a business; it's there to do a nasty job. 'A policeman's lot is not a happy one' wasn't written as some figment of someone's imagination. 

As a result of this new unrepresentative police leadership, we now have police more interested in supporting illogical single issue lobby groups and minorities than the community as a whole. 

Not only is all this uncontrolled Tweety, Nicy, Selfy, silly piccie policing costing us all from the police budget and is certainly not policing but it exposes officers at all levels, not only revealing their mindset, but how silly they can be. That's why in The Real Police, see before all this happened, everything a commander published had been carefully vetted and considered and no-one else could say or write anything public without permission. 

It's from such Tweets that I found out about this minority single issue lobby group within the police that we are paying for. How can police claim they're hard up, then maintain divisive single issue police groups like LGBT? This is your modern happy clappy policing under the NPCC Basically, as I have published, see this is no country for Stale, Pale, Male and his wife

The modern police, under the current NPCC, are just a microcosm of how the UK is now run. Unfortunately, hidden behind most ideology is dishonesty too. It's really not about Left Wings and Right Wings, - that's just as contrived as other controlling myths such as 'Speed Kills' 'Living Streets' 'Sharing' 'It's 30 for a reason' - no there is only right and wrong about any issue. 

All  Left people have one thing in common, they are all still stuck in naive adolescence where unfortunately, no matter what their academic title, Doctor, or Professor, they are stuck in their unreal immature world but to reconcile their nonsense, they must lie and cheat and at some point label their critics with name calling and marginalisation. 

Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in policing and road safety issues. Against genuine and relevant road safety is the green anti driver ideologists, over promoted with public funding in far too many bogus charities and the mercenary profiteers feeding from them. See the vested interests here.  

But the worst of all is the  costly Traffic Policing Empire who are not only dishonest but actually operate against community interests.

No better example of police marketing themselves locally than working with local Nimby Speed Watch vigilantes, See more here  and see how police twist complaints of dangerous drivers to justify it here.

What the following tweets reveal is that police are more interested in impeding major roads infrastructure, against the needs of the community, than supporting road safety, The Community and drivers. They actively promote unneeded human and animal hazards in the road for pure recreation (Here in rural Lincolnshire, the only cyclists we see are out on a jolly) than genuine road safety. They also think that Tractors and agriculture are the only essential motorised road users who must be considered. Roads are not about a 'Pace of life'; all motor transport on the roads is there for essential reasons. 

What this series of tweets confirms is that we do have an anti driver anti genuine road safety Traffic Police Empire. 

Here you will see one high volume Tweeter, a costly Traffic Chief Inspector, revealing that one of his ambitions is to win a police tweeting award. Can you believe what traffic policing has come to? 

See Here's why we must disband the massive, self promoting, traffic police empire.  

#MorePatienceFewerPatients pic.twitter.com/zpSpT1oLIy

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) July 27, 2016

It's getting to that time of year, PLEASE respect our farming community and enjoy a pace that comes with rural life pic.twitter.com/3gLLb6Jepb

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) July 27, 2016

So tractor drivers ignoring large tailbacks causing overtake dangers isn't driving without due care then?  Roads are not about a pace of life but about people trying to get things done..

July = CycleSafety month

PLEASE #ThinkBike

PLEASE Give Cyclists S P A C E #ShareTheRoad

Follow @sharetheroad_uk pic.twitter.com/EC9yfsqoej

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) July 28, 2016

At no time can traffic police tell us why we must have exposed people in the road. It's not like kiddies 'sharing', sweeties, cakes and footballs. See: Roads are major infrastructure not playgrounds. 

Why is that bike in the middle of the road? #safetyfirst #sharetheroad pic.twitter.com/EY9oTy4SBD

— Share the Road (@sharetheroad_uk) July 12, 2016

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) June 26, 2016

This tweet from the same Traffic Chief connects him to support of another divisive single issue police lobby group.

@leicspolice @DCCLeicsPolice @PoliceTour Why are #police promoting unneeded human hazards on UK's Roads? Crazy https://t.co/zEHKec5g9A

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) July 29, 2016

This week in @CCLeicsPolice's vlog: cycling in the UK Police Unity Tour, his summer holidays and fighting terrorism. https://t.co/MN6aKzY4ab

— LeicestershirePolice (@leicspolice) August 2, 2016 

A classic example of not only police supporting unneeded hazards against drivers and road safety, but joining in the fun themselves. 

When driving behind a horse rider, make sure you give them plenty of space. #Thinkhorsethink15 pic.twitter.com/WWM6D7z6pA

— Northants Police (@NorthantsPolice) August 16, 2016

Horse riding on roads is now pure recreation and contrary to safety. Why do police promote it?

@NorthantsPolice Classic. 2 girls using roads for recreation, 2 abreast, not needed by society being encouraged by police to screw up roads.

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) August 16, 2016

Why are police encouraging unneeded road hazards to screw up drivers? Anti driver police? @NorthantsPolice https://t.co/N6u3fyRzu7

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) August 16, 2016

#THINK & @BritishHorse partnership reminding drivers to slow down, pass wide & be ready to stop when passing horseshttps://t.co/RZK4eW5hL3

— THINK! road safety (@THINKgovuk) August 3, 2016

If your horse is nervous in traffic, ride with other less nervous horses #thinkhorsethink15

— Northants Police (@NorthantsPolice) August 5, 2016

If the horse is nervous in traffic, why force it to be on the road? Wouldn't that be better advice from the Northants Police? 

Police force posts ‘offensive’ Nazi tweet on official Twitter account https://t.co/AjoZQTmVYV

— Evening Standard (@standardnews) August 8, 2016

Oh dear. This is what happens with uncontrolled police tweeting. 

Please vote in the 2016 Police Twitter Awards https://t.co/SjhrscGdL7#PolTAwards@policeawards pic.twitter.com/z48ZVLVLAH

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) July 14, 2016

We've just voted in the @policeawards .......... Have you? ⭐️ Good luck #Lincolnshire pic.twitter.com/MAXedQ9bm0

— LincsTradingStandard (@lincsts) July 10, 2016 

This week we'll highlight some great #TeamNYP Twitter accounts. Vote for them in the @policeawards #Poltawards! 🏆👮 pic.twitter.com/14iOufCmx0

— NorthYorkshirePolice (@NYorksPolice) August 7, 2016

Thank you to those that signed hands as a pledge to support CEASE at @LPBeaumontLeys Community Event today #LLRCease pic.twitter.com/1XFW0L0kUK

— LeicestershirePolice (@leicspolice) August 9, 2016

See how we have been running Britain on the basis that all policy must be nice. 

Look all we want is police being police instead of tweeting and telling us how nice they are. Policing was never about being nice.  

So here is our paid road safety industry being dangerous.

'Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership; working together to reduce collisions and casualties on Gloucestershire's roads, & to teach road safety skills for life'

This tweet was posted by Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership. It is extremely dangerous and wrong. 

Can you see what's coming the other way? Double white lines are there for a reason. (RT @RoadSafetyWales) pic.twitter.com/rywUKnyTBP

— GlosRoadSafety (@GlosRoadSafety) July 30, 2016

But Road Safety Wales were at it too.  

Can you see what's coming the other way? Double white lines are there for a reason. #fatal5 pic.twitter.com/PHfK4fmcrR

— Road Safety Wales (@RoadSafetyWales) July 28, 2016

'Road Safety Wales is a partnership between the 22 Welsh Local Authorities, the Welsh Emergency Services, GoSafe, The Welsh Government and RoSPA.'

Well it's telling you that it's unsafe to overtake because of 'Double White Lines' isn't it?

Apart from not specifying 'continuous' white lines, it means that there would be no danger if there were a continuous white line on your side, nearest to you, and a broken white line on the other side further from you then?

I tweeted this to try to repair the damage.

@GlosRoadSafety @RoadSafetyWales What a dangerous Tweet. Don't look for two 'white lines' It's the continuous one on your side that matters.

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) July 30, 2016

And here.

@GlosRoadSafety @safer_roads @RoadSafetyWales Continuous white line on your side is what affects you. Double is irrelevant,

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) July 30, 2016

How didn't anyone in two paid and costly road safety groups spot this before publication?

Road Safety Wales are promoting something called #Fatal5 too, See more on that here. Even though it sneakily keeps 'speed' in instead of dangerous driving which is what too fast is. This helps their 'speeding' revenue.  

Please RT this and distribute this urgently before it causes a terrible accident. 

Why do we trust RoSPA on road safety?

Who is RoSPA and are they objective and impartial when it comes to road safety? 

Well just like other numerous alleged road safety charities like:  BRAKE, PACTS, 20's Plenty, Sustrans etc. We can easily identify their true aims simply by asking if they see roads, like rail, as essential infrastructure or places where people can be allowed to unnecessarily place themselves in danger. 

We define road cycling here. See the definition & fatal results of road cycling here 

How can any group that is genuinely interested in road safety, support such a contradiction in terms? Well surely only if they are really anti driver ideologists who are very happy for infrastructure to be impeded, slowed and hampered by unnecessary human hazards. 

And then, having promoted all this, demand that drivers are always liable and expect them to serve long terms of imprisonment when it goes wrong. What else is that but anti driver? 

Any genuine road safety charity will start by asking 'Who must society have on our roads?' 

The answer is obvious. We only need walkers and drivers. That is an undeniable fact. Anyone who denies that isn't really interested in road safety at all and is also primarily anti driver.  

@Driver_Hatred Read https://t.co/J7mvkvRBNQ we have a balanced policy on how cyclists & vehicles mix

— RoSPA Road Safety (@roadsafety) July 15, 2016

 

Road Rules for Cyclists?

A dedicated highway code for cyclists has just been published https://t.co/oEYq3XfhgO pic.twitter.com/uhWeDdeQTt

— Evening Standard (@standardnews) June 6, 2016

A Highway Code for cyclists? 'Yippee' I can hear drivers shouting. 'Yes bring it on'. 'Long overdue'.

Asked by a BBC presenter should they have one........ 'NO' 'Especially not written by the AA of all people' I told listeners.

Why? 'Well they fix plumbing and cars and insure anything you want insured, but what is their expertise in road safety, driving, accidents, and prosecution?' I asked.

That's the problem. We have too many amateurs and vested interests with no CV meddling around with road safety. It would be highly dangerous for the AA to be doing it. 

But why would it be bad for drivers? Well look at this link with AA's Edmund King- disappointingly for him only getting an OBE for bogus road safety and now probably aiming for a knighthood- who is totally pro cycling and very anti driver, with the cycling crazy anti driver Carlton Reid, the author of a book that really pretends and claims that roads are not for cars,

 and with whose help these rules for cyclists have been published by the AA  See for yourself here. Don't take my word.

And here they are colluding with each other to promote unworkable draconian rules on drivers on Twitter.

@carltonreid @looknorthBBC I did Look North Hull rather than Newcastle methinks....

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 6, 2016

Carlton Reid

'It is no surprise to me that the foreword to the book is by Edmund King on the pretence of representing drivers. He is so pro cyclist, and what I call an anti driver driver, it's like getting Captain Ahab to endorse a book on whale killing.' 
So one thing is for sure, these rules will be cyclist subjective and of no good for the driver.

And just like this draconian measure being promoted against drivers by the same lobby that makes no sense whatsoever -  I have asked AA for their view on this idea and if they accept this nonsense? Well now we know. See the tweets on this between King and Reid above- The first question should always be 'Why must we have road cycling at all?' It's a very fair question that so far no official is able to explain. Certainly the Commons Select Committee didn't ask it before handing out £650000000 a year to these three; oh one of whom was no less than Sir Edmund  ,asking for more fines for drivers and more money for the speeding courses he runs. How some-one subject of this story still got an OBE for road safety is beyond me. It was more an OBE for services to cycling, but for the Automobile Association, who still sells lots of insurance to drivers, that may have been incompatible. 

So no. This cycle code isn't going to be better for drivers or for roads. It's a promotion by people who want us out of cars and on pushbikes who have no qualification to be writing road rules.

It will ignore the fact that the primary cause of cycling casualties is..........road cycling.  This is the reality here.

The AA is now so diverse, it really has no right to call itself the Automobile Association It would be more accurate to call itself the Cycle Association CA

The question is: Do the Dept for Transport, and Home Office condone this gross interference and amateur road rules like this? Will the AA get their wings clipped? Don't give up the day job.

Now Edmund is saying:  

This version of the Highway Code is aimed at new cyclists and parents of children learning to cycle https://t.co/4RILst6Lza #thinkbikes

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 6, 2016

Oh well that means the vast majority don't need to fork out £4.99 to learn how to put kiddies among big heavy moving machines then? 

Edmund King OBE, AA President, and bogus road safety profiteers who screw drivers for no valid reason.

Well as I asked at the time this was being mooted, See here 'How many of the 1700 fatals, from all causes on our roads per year, are down to a drug driver solely? Not many. Nothing compared to the 30,000 deaths a year from thirst while in our hard up NHS hospitals. I even wrote to Roads Minister Robert Goodwill See here

Ok so the laws were passed, costly kit supplied at gross profit to our police, and now coppers we prefer to be patrolling beats, at great expense are instead, harassing and  inconveniencing more drivers and prosecuting them in their thousands even though they are unlikely to cause an accident at all.

I wouldn't mind if all the testing kit was supplied at mere cost in the interests of the community and road safety but it isn't.

So what is the news? Almost 8000 drivers have been arrested already for drug driving since the Act.

Here is dear old friend of the driver Edmund King OBE, failing to mention the obvious that when we invent a new way to prosecute drivers, the prosecution of drivers...........goes up!

BBC News - Drug driving: Almost 8,000 arrests in England and Wales https://t.co/dEfyqhTug8

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 1, 2016

@EastMidsDrivers Sick

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident @EastMidsDrivers And this is the best The AA President can do in response to a very valid road safety question? @TheAA_UK

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident @EastMidsDrivers It's a reasonable Question. How many die because of drug drivers? What is 'sick' is the profiteering Edmund.

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident And this has nothing to with costly new kit sold for massive profit, for the good of the community of course?

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 1, 2016

Wouldn't you think if King & the AA were pro driver, they would be querying this too? More on Edmund here  and he even has his own Topic Label above with more about him.  Another example of Edmund failing to address the issue. And here in 2012 we said 'Edmund avoids the statement with: ' You are like a scratched record and a very boring one at that' So no denial to that either then. Apart from changing the subject with puerile remarks saying more about Edmund than he would like, how about the serious road safety matters that he isn't denying and seems to think is acceptable?' And ''Speed awareness courses run for profit by private companies on the basis of poor science and wrongful ticketing' Edmund's response? 'Barking'. No denial there then!' See the blog here


So it seems that to get an OBE for road safety, all you need to do is to habitually refuse to address road safety reality, to the cost of drivers, by just responding with a silly comment and abuse. 

Here is why we must have rules for speed limits.

Here in this Courier story  is encapsulated all the elements of false subjective speed limiting.

The lies to the media. the massive number of perfectly safe drivers being entrapped, the denials that it's about money and so on.

I have written to The Courier as follows:

Hi, re the speeding profiteers.

I am an ex police driving expert working for road safety.

The reason that these prosecutions are not a deterrent is because, most being caught, are not local and  are 1st time offenders. This applies to nearly all the anti driver schemes such as bus lanes, yellow boxes etc.

If a site is generating many offenders, then the site is failing and is probably because the limit is inappropriately set.

If these were accidents and injuries, would the police just pop out with a van to take pictures of it all or get it fixed? So no they are being insincere with you. The Speeding Industry must have speeders to persist and subsist and here is the evidence of it.

We are now using this story to demonstrate why drivers must sign a new petition to reinstate the abandoned, objective 85%tile rule for setting speed limits.  

See here: http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!blank-1/v76z0

We must take anti driver ideology and profiteering from speed limits and restore sanity as soon as possible

Sign the petition now: Sign it here 

But we must get 100,000 votes just to get Parliament to even discuss it. There are 35 million drivers affected by this as well as the massive cost of over-slowing UK infrastructure.

Your vote is a great start but sadly isn't just good enough. Tell friends, relatives and associates that they too need to put their name to supporting UK's exploited drivers and opposing dangerous, bogus road safety policy.  

Still not convinced? See the full case  Here

Numerous studies show 85th percentile is safest possible level to set a speed limit. @motorists #speedlimits https://t.co/RdkvtwPeFv

— NMA (@motorists) May 18, 2016

Convinced? Then email associates or FB them or re-Tweet them.  They all depend on drivers.

 Let's aim for a lot more than 100,000 though

Good Luck Drivers.

Get this signed