More evidence of anti driver officials running our roads. They must be sacked.

It could've been worse. They could've given AA's Edmund King a coveted Knighthood. However his OBE, no doubt less than 'arise Sir Edmund', is enough to prove our case that a whole anti driver, anti profit free genuine road safety regime is running government.  

How can this man get any award for anything road safety? If this is wrong Edmund sue me. 

Edmund King OBE

But here's another in the same list. Up till 2015 he was a DfT civil servant And gets a CBE. Now a director of RACF, See an example of them here and Here.

We had already traced anti driver 20's Plenty Rod King's MBE

Rod King

Roger Geffen 

 to the DfT See the DfT Smoking Gun and just like King, and Stephen Gooding, road safety, without any CV, and to be dangerously meddling in it at all, really isn't for commendation. And the recent MBE of virulent anti driver of CTC. Roger Geffen who appeared before a Transport Select Committee with King, where King pretended to be the reasonable face of drivers when actually not representing drivers at all.  More on CTC here See King & Geffen at work on Select Committee and still tell me that King & AA are pro driver. 

I had already noted the amount of anti driver, anti genuine road safety OBEs and CBEs and the links to the DfT. See here.

I had also noted that no matter what party was in government, ministers were still responding with the same illogical anti road safety anti driver replies as their predecessors did. So clearly there seemed to be an anti driver green influence within the DfT. All the foregoing only corroborates that view. The discovery of Stephen Gooding, so recently a senior civil servant at DfT and now with the anti driver RACF, is very worrying even if he is at least no longer there. 

Now we have the recent discovery that such DfT civil servants, without any CV whatsoever, are instructing police to submit bogus accident stats that promote speeding profiteering. See open letter to police chiefs How corrupt? What gross DfT interference. 

We all depend on drivers and road transport. Without all drivers society and the economy would collapse totally and very soon all 65 million of us would die. By definition any aggressive policy against drivers is therefore aggression against the whole community. There is no place for anti driver civil servants in central or local government. They are anti community.

Let's look to getting them all sacked.  

Enough of these bogus anti driver tax break charities with no CV in road safety.

In this story.  BRAKE are annoyed with the Government for failing to be tougher on essential UK infrastructure and drivers in their insatiable and ridiculous demands for lower and lower road casualties.

Of course there has been a predictable increase in road casualties over last year which was an exceptionally low year and one bound to be followed by slightly higher figures thereafter.

'the Statement fails to include casualty reduction targets or a 'vision zero', which would make clear that the ultimate goal is to reduce deaths to zero.'

How do these people get taken seriously when they make 
demands like that? 

At the moment, after 300 billion driver miles a year, with drivers having to cope with all sorts of animal and human hazards, there is less death on the road from all causes than there is from accidents in the home, from strangulation, from hanging and from self harm.

Perhaps we should be asking why we actually need BRAKE and all the other bogus unqualified anti driver tax break road safety charities at all? And if the tax break money being consumed by BRAKE and their ilk would save more lives if spent with the NHS or Fire and Rescue or police?

Do see this graphic perspective of the UK Road Safety Fat Cats. See it here

Why are BRAKE so dangerous? For a start they have no CV in road safety, accident reporting or top driving and so, like lots of road safety meddlers, are not qualified to be commenting on the matter. But then they fail to take into account the fact that, whilst there are bound to be road casualties, especially if people like BRAKE are recommending more cycling for example, our whole society and economy is based on motor transport, especially the motor car. Take them away and all 65 million of us die. So a trade off of about 2000 a year to keep 65 million alive has to be OK surely. 

To achieve 'zero' would mean stopping all road traffic and thus killing 65 million of us. How can any official take these people seriously? Well the same crowd were taken in by Jimmy Saville too weren't they? 

Maybe we have long passed the cost benefit number anyway whereby we are not killing enough people on the road and far more from the economic cost of not doing so elsewhere in society. Has anyone calculated this? Certainly those within the lucrative road safety bubble, like BRAKE, have no interest in any other sort of death which leads me to think they have no real interest in road death either.

BRAKE are not really interested in saving lives as much as making lots of money for BRAKE whilst doing its utmost to screw important and essential infrastructure. See BRAKE finance

Let's get it clear. The Road Safety Industry is not free, it's not benign, it's very aggressive and it's a minority of profiteers operating against the interests of the whole community who depend on drivers to exist. 

Good road safety will never come from profit, or anti driver ideology. So Why is the DfT supporting these dangerous charities?

Should the police be screwing the community for them either? See this open letter to NPCC

We must close down this whole anti community industry and start afresh.

Look at these tax break companies who are supporting these anti community charities. See them here.

North Yorks Chief Constable supports misuse of bereaved

In its presentation of a fatal accident, North Yorks Police used a bereaved relative to falsely promote speeding policy by claiming the accident was caused by 'speeding'  The simple fact is that had the driver survived, the charge wouldn't have been death by speeding but by dangerous driving. It's bad enough that police should lie about these things but to exploit bereaved to do so is appalling conduct by any standards.

See the original story here.

To then label me as oppressive, vexatious and abusive for simply raising the issue with them just shows how volatile and nasty the police can be to protect their very lucrative speeding industry at the expense of real accident causes. See how NorthYorks must lie And here on the fatal 4

I wrote to their Chief Constable David Jones with what I imagined would be a simple proposition that using bereaved to publish false and dangerous information should cease:

 David Jones Esq,

Chief Constable,

North Yorkshire Police,

Newby Wiske
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL7 9HA

5^th November 15

Your Ref: 870815

Dear Mr Jones,

Exploiting bereaved to promote false public statements on speed

Thank you for your response of the 28/10/15 by an indecipherable signatory.

Yes I will write to Ms Davenport as you suggest.

However there is no reason why your force cannot act unilaterally on such an important point and raise the matter with her and indeed effect changes locally too.

The issue with NYP specifically isn’t the Fatal 4 campaign but that a bereaved was used to publicly promote false statements about the cause of an accident and subsequently the inappropriate language used by one of your officers against me for raising the issue.

I note that you have not disagreed with me that ‘speeding’, that is to simply exceed a number on a pole, cannot cause a reaction or an accident to occur and that in the case cited, it would’ve have been dangerous driving. It is dangerous driving or careless driving that do cause accidents and they are not included as causes in the Fatal 4. In view of that I offered a reasonable resolution in that your force would cease to make false statements about accidents and use bereaved to do so.

My aim is for best and genuine road safety, far less focus on ‘speeding’ and more on genuine accident causes. Perhaps NYP can join me and support my work by amending the Fatal 4 to a Fatal 5 that includes dangerous and careless driving but not speeding.

I accept we must have speed limits and cameras as a tool in the tool box, but given that most speed limits I survey are inappropriate and set on a very arbitrary parochial basis anyway, there are far too many perfectly safe drivers being prosecuted currently as a result by a profit based regime that must have speeders now to sustain itself. It worries me then that this industry is promoting itself via bereaved to make false statements.

Will you join me by instigating a focus on genuine accident causes as I suggested?

Wishes

Keith Peat.

Cc NYP Commissioner.

Mr Jones replied. 

So there we have it. Top police are not prepared to kill off road safety lies that fetch in loads of money. 

North Yorkshire Police Must Lie about Fatal 4

The total piety of that specialist breed, the road traffic officers actually has them believing that their work, attacking, prosecuting and harassing drivers is cost effective and just.

They do not understand that, without drivers, our economy and they, cease to exist and we all die. Drivers are not the enemy of the State but just ordinary people with limited ability and means struggling to keep society going.

After 300 billion driver miles a year, there is less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home, from strangulation, hanging and self harm but by the multi billions being expended by a road safety industry of profiteers and anti drivers, you would never believe that most of this attention on drivers is totally out of proportion and counter productive.

The traffic officers, like their whole corrupt industry, are incapable of looking outside their bubble. They cannot see that the damage and hampering of major infrastructure is costing so much that we are killing more people from the economics of it, as well as directly from false road safety policy which focuses on profit more than accident causes.

In these tweets you can see an example of a traffic Ch.Ins caught up in this bubble and it hasn't occurred to him that none of this is altruistic at all. How much do these machines cost? Who profits? What is the cost of stopping all these drivers? How many people actually do die only because a driver was drugged? See my letter to a Minister

And again. the Fatal 4 lie is included in his message. See the lie hereThis senior officer knows that 'speeding' causes nothing and so the Fatal 4 is a lie to promote the speeding industry and for no other reason. Fatal 4 does not include dangerous and careless driving that are undoubtedly fatal so that is how corrupt and dangerous these people are really prepared to be.

See more on NYP dishonesty & use of bereaved for false statements

I challenge Ch Insp Phil Vickers to be honest about road safety if he possibly can be.

Economically society has no need for this breed of officer who really does see drivers as a priority of police expenditure. It is about time other police realised that, when the economy suffers, they go short of funds yet they have a branch which is part of a counter productive no cost benefit industry of vast sums that could be better spent elsewhere in the police.   

See why this traffic monolith must be culled 

#EMOpSS have 900 DrugDrive kits to use during our #Fatal4 Campaign @SouthTRPT @TRPTNorth @LincsRAPT @LeicsRAPT https://t.co/Qvd3SVS6n2

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) November 29, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @LincsRAPT @SouthTRPT @TRPTNorth @LeicsRAPT So if these kits are for a good cause, why are they sold for profit?

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) November 29, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @LincsRAPT @SouthTRPT @TRPTNorth @LeicsRAPT Yet more death from accidents in the home & strangulation. The kits. Altruistic?

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) November 29, 2015

@CIPhilVickers @LincsRAPT @SouthTRPT @TRPTNorth @LeicsRAPT Must be nice to focus on your own costly bubble like this.

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) November 29, 2015

Serious Collision Investigation Units? OMG!

Look at this story about a straight forward fatal road accident where an unprotected human on a flimsy frame and wheels got hit by a large piece of moving metal and died. See it here. 

For a start it's no longer an 'accident', so that loads of money can be wasted in searching for a culprit and someone to prosecute. So we now only have 'collisions.'

What is astounding is that 'cash strapped' police forces are maintaining units to investigate accidents at all. The cause, as in this case, is often self evident and where it isn't immediately self evident, then let's just accept it and move on?

PC Jim Lovell, from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit at Three Mile Cross, said: “I would like to hear from anyone who was in the vicinity on Tuesday night and either witnessed the collision or saw either of the vehicles before it happened."

That's the sort of appeal we hear on Crimewatch after a murder or robbery isn't it? It was a bloody accident for goodness sake.

It's not as if these investigations are going to prevent another such accident. All they do is to, very expensively, look for someone to blame and to prosecute. In my day we just accepted the reporting beat officer's report and if there were anything in that that would indicate wrong doing, then a summons was also added. Now police forces are sustaining special units to hound drivers, and some are even called detectives too with all the perks and expenses that detectives enjoy. 

How can police forces plead that they're cash strapped when they are using up cash to turn accidents into crimes? Let's have these coppers back on the beat and mostly to be interested in crime and violence where most of us want them. 

Look at this piety:  

End of a long day, I open a letter sat on my desk

My eyes water

I'm reminded why we do this job#POLICE pic.twitter.com/cA6adhkofS

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) February 23, 2016

@CIPhilVickers @mrwilliam Did this bring her back? Did it discover a method of stopping it again? What dis this costly exercise achieve?

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 24, 2016

@mrwilliam Sorry to be so tough but road safety ain't no popularity contest. https://t.co/mZseMtpTC0 @CIPhilVickers https://t.co/HioJmfOoYq

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) February 24, 2016

Yet another pretty young doctor thinks she's a road safety and driving expert

We have already commented on the amount of people with no CV in driving, road safety, accidents and prosecution having a major say in the subject. The worst are the academics that use their honors to give themselves credibility in a subject for which they know very little about. In this case, Dr Fiona Fylan, chunters on about the psychology of speeders -based on it's always their fault- without addressing what actually causes speeding and dangerously confusing speeding with dangerous driving too. 

Dr Fylan

See her in action here..We note that she is involved with Road Safety GB yet another spurious organisation to which all local road safety officers, also with no CV defer. More on them here and here 

I have written to Dr Fiona explaining what speeding is and what causes it as follows:

Dear Doctor Fylan,

We are ex police driving & road safety experts.

I expect that your objectives are for best, not profit or ideologically based road safety.

Please do read our explanation of speed related offences. bit.ly/1FfO0BR and in particular the fact that 'Speeding' cannot cause an accident. Thus there is no such offence of death by speeding. The fourth category you describe are not just speeding but driving dangerously. Were they to kill anyone the charge wouldn 't be death by speeding. It is crucial that we do not refer to dangerous driving as speeding.

With regard to coercive speed awareness courses for profit, we cannot find any legal authority whereby police can waive due judicial process on payment of money to anyone other than the courts. In fact we jail police officers who offer such wheeling and dealing. See bit.ly/1i8buJQ & bit.ly/17KEa8P In any case these courses are valueless because they are not teaching the truth about speeding, the cameras and the limits either. In fact they are counter productive because they depend on and need speeders to subsist. This is why high volume sites are allowed to continue to fail by many thousands of cultivated speeders when the problem could be corrected. If a site generated 10s of 1000s of accidents, would police just take pictures and money or find out what's going wrong and correct it? So here is the evidence of a mercenary fiscal objective.

The unintentional categories you speak of are victims of a set formula which, as an expert driver and someone who studies many speed limits too, can tell you that it is caused by either an enticing road layout, lack of sufficient signage reminders, or  inappropriate speed limits which can all be easily corrected if the true objective is to reduce speeders and not to keep the speeding industry in business.

I am sorry but my studies show that those who deliberately speed slightly are very rare but those that do deserve a ticket ;even though if the limit were appropriate and set scientifically as opposed to the unqualified political parochial aspirations, as they now often are, there would be less of those too. I am afraid that your premise is that the limit is correct. What is the driving cv of the person who picks the number?

What is serious is that all this profitable focus on speeding that cannot cause accidents is at the expense of ignoring some accident causes totally and others partially. This is killing people. An example of this is the Fatal 4 campaign where only 3 are fatal but speeding, which isn't but makes a lot of money, is included yet dangerous and careless  driving,  which undoubtedly kill people, are excluded. How dangerously corrupt is that?

Are you sure that you can put your qualifications in support of such dangerous profiteering?

Please do not hesitate to contact us for independent expert  road safety, driving, and prosecution advice.

Wishes

Keith Peat

www.driversunion.co

Let's see if the good doctor is just another interested in self promotion by propaganda or someone genuinely interested in road safety?

Police tell students 'speeding' doesn't cause accidents.

Edmund King

I have been banging on for ages that 'speeding' cannot possibly be a cause of anything but driving too fast for the circumstances ( dangerous driving) does cause accidents. See understanding speed here. The last Lincolnshire Chief Constable confirmed my statements on this but ,if in doubt, why is there no offence of causing death by speeding? And what else can be concluded from rule 125 of the Highway Code which confirms that it's driving too fast below the limits that causes accidents.  

That being the case, why so much focus on speeding via a multi million pound road safety industry at the expense of totally ignoring some accident causes and a lack of attention to others? This lack of focus for profit on accident causes is actually killing people.

So obviously, the coercion of attending speed awareness courses for cash and no points, is simply exploiting thousands of perfectly safe drivers who have fallen for confusing and inviting road layouts, inappropriate speed limits and or inadequate signage. See more on this here

So why have profiteering from companies such as AA Drive Tech for a situation set up and allowed to continue, by the authorities, thus feeding the profiteers? 

This week a national radio presenter, with no CV in road safety at all, tweeted 'I loved my speed awareness course today with Mohammed and Paul. Absolutely fascinating. Best afternoon detention ever' And later, in discussion with me, on their program, demanded that all drivers should be sent on these courses. Eh? but who's to pay for this? The drivers? Some £3.33 billion from the economy? How many lives would we save if this money went into the NHS, the police who are suffering shortages, fire and rescue and ambulance instead. Don't depend on the Road Safety Industry-especially the ardent and short sighted traffic cops- to suggest this. 

I have already criticised other media people for becoming sycophantic over these fraudulent courses and then, dangerously use their influence, to promote this scam with no CV whatsoever in the matters of road safety, driving and prosecution. See an example here with Richard Madeley. So brainwashed are they, they now see themselves as experts in road safety, driving and prosecution..

Edmund King of the AA loved the tweet so much he re-tweeted it.Of course he would. He's a director of the firm that ran the course. I told the listeners about this. How brazen Edmund is after already having been exposed nationally for his vested interest in the scam. See King exposed here.  

When I pointed out that the courses do not tell the truth and tell their students that their actions couldn't cause an accident, the presenter told the nation that one of the instructors had been honest and told them that speeding cannot cause accidents.

So therefor the Fatal 4 campaign, which includes 'speeding' as one of the 4, is a lie then. What better example is there of speeding being promoted, for profit, when dangerous driving and careless driving, which certainly do cause fatalities, are not even included in the list?  In fact police even exploit bereaved to perpetuate the profitable lie. See it here.

Broadcasters and journalists would serve us all better if they attacked road safety profiteering instead of promoting coercion and fraud. At the very least they shouldn't preach to the nation on a matter for which they are not qualified.

See Are the courses legal?