The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

A biased and unsafe claim by The Daily Telegraph?

I have commented thus:

'I cycle on the road as if every driver is trying to hit me' 

That doesn't make sense. In that case why do it at all if it's that bad? It's a fair logical question. 

Dare I say that the collision isn't obviously deliberate but the actions after tend to support that conclusion. But even those could be those of a totally confused and bewildered frightened driver from the get go.

But wasn't this piece written by a cyclist? If so it can hardly be balanced rational reporting can it?

On the basis of this evidence, the police seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Millions of times a day, drivers are safely passing cyclists without incident and I am sure if there was mass attempted murder and murder by car going on the Telegraph would've been leading with all that now. But why foment a cycle war DT?

You are encouraging exposed humans of all ages, on two flimsy wheels and a slender frame, to mix and mingle and often obstruct and compete with, large essential machinery on the move and which is operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capability. Now can anyone deny that is what road cycling is? If it were invented now in 2014 it would be considered as a mad idea. 

See these instances DT and then tell us you encourage all this.  http://
 The list keeps growing.  and look at Top cyclists showing the more you do it. the more chance of being killed or aimed by it.

So Daily Telegraph, is that what you want to support? All these people out on a total limb?

Luckily most of the 65 million occupants of these islands don't think it's safe or viable either. So don't let's just pay lip service to a tiny minority and highlight the dangers instead shall we? 

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?

Friday, 25 April 2014

Why a stated passing clearance is a non starter

Just look at this story of a Huston Idiot with a pole after that city passed a three foot rule.

So does he wait when there's less than 3 feet between slow moving cars then? Do most commuting cyclists? Of course they don't. But someone dare open a car door as they pass and all hell breaks out as their 'blame others' mentality takes over.

Let's hope that our politicians are not so stupid as others and remember that they don't really need cyclists but they do need drivers before there is any similar driver oppression in their minds.

Look the concept of road cycling is dangerous and a risky choice but to impede essential infrastructure for it is a crazy notion for any right minded politician.

In any case drivers don't carry a three foot tape measure and must not be torn between evasive action to avoid a collision by leaving any space to do so unused.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Anti driver CTC, Road Peace & British Cycling all want longer driver jail

In this story a driver who became enraged by cyclists two abreast gets ten months in jail for injuring two of them. See the story here Now I do not condone his actions but can well understand his anger and annoyance. I don't know if all the Judge's remarks were reported but it seems that he must have been pro cyclist and anti driver if he failed to query why cyclists can just ignore other road users and impose their speeds on them for purely social reasons. Riding out in groups two abreast is certainly not going to work and is entirely social.

What I find puzzling is how people with any brain think that it's a good idea to use their bodies to annoy complete strangers in big machinery. What is it about Lycra clad cyclists that makes them believe that their right not to be killed or turned into a paraplegic will actually stop it happening no matter how much they test their theory to the limit. Well these top cyclists prove them wrong  

But having set the drivers up with this liability, anti driver ideologists like CTC, British Cycling and Road Peace are clamouring for more driver jail.

That's why I point out that actually society doesn't need road cycling but it certainly needs drivers and driving. If things are that bad stop road cycling. Or at least insist it's not social and only single file. 

Cyclists attack woman driver over silly cyclist

'That woman', 'Lazy', 'Obese', 'Dumbass cow', 'can't drive for shit'. 

Just some of the comments from the self rightious and blameless cycling fraternity. 

If the authorities need any evidence of how silly and irrational the avid cycle lobby are, then they should read the comments attached to this video See it here and read the comments.  of a cyclist who, cycling against the traffic on a footway on the wrong side of the road, ignores a stationary car in the middle of the road signalling to turn right onto a drive and just rides across the path of the vehicle. The woman driver stops to avoid collision and the cyclist rides on unscathed. The recorded unprompted comments of the children in the car, who witnessed it, say it all as do those of the woman driver.

The cycle lobby, never shy of videoing drivers clearly hate the same being done to them. But rather than accept that the cyclist was wrong, they then make disparaging comments about the woman driver and her driving.

A cycle lobby twitter post even lied that the child had said 'Uncle Keith hates cyclists'. This was shared and re-tweeted among the group.

The authorities should take note of the cycling attitude and consider if we can ever take their comments on face value when considering their demands and claims. They are a very vicious and dishonest lobby. They don't represent the vast majority of cyclists who demand nothing from society and would not have endorsed this cyclist either.  

Saturday, 19 April 2014

So cycle road racing is dangerous cycling then?

In this story a top cyclist is killed by doing things that would've had a driver arrested and jailed for death by 
dangerous. Speeding, and dangerous overtaking and bunching. Junior Heffernen's fatal riding.

This is what proves that the style and speed of the cyclist must affect the outcome of any of their crashes and thus be considered by any court. See those who disagreed with me here.

The very fact that the fast cycling lobby argue against this basic no brainer is one good reason why the rest of us must over-rule their attitudes for their sakes as well as ours.

Monday, 14 April 2014

More L.A.M.B corres.

Return to main post Here 

We have written to the council leader since his two councillors are more concerned about their local votes to think of Lincolnshire tourism.

Us:Dear Councillor Hill,

Height Barriers.

'Lincolnshire doesn't want motor home holiday cash' & 'Lincolnshire doesn't welcome motor homes' are both currently true statements since the LCC unwisely listened to two councillors feathering their own political nests by treating our coast and beaches as if belonging to local parishes in their wards.

With wild claims of threats of violence, rubbish, whole sites covered in motor homes, yet I have asked for the evidence of this, details, police reports etc to support this draconian discrimination by barrier to no avail so far.I think it's no more than gross exaggeration and generalisation.

The whole case is amply illustrated at these two dedicated web pages, and

These councillors, having cost the Council a fortune in erecting discriminatory barriers along our coastal amenities are clearly unwilling to admit their mistake now and in publicly threatening to close the amenities altogether if they don't prevail, surely cannot be speaking for The Council with these empty threats and such dishonest threats are just making a bad decision worse.

Having tried to reason with them, I have no option to go above their heads and into the public domain with this.

I am sick and tired of having to challenge these barriers throughout the UK and don't experience them anywhere else. It's about time we either ban motor homes or accept that they are now a very common and growing vacation option which is highly taxed and levied and do accommodate them everywhere now.

The problem is a Council failure. When large terraces at beaches are abandoned without regulation, of course people will take advantage of a free facility and undesirables too. It's a no brainer. So any problems at these sites is entirely down to no or lack of council management. They should be considered as an important part of Lincolnshire tourism with their own budget and income.

You now have a by-law in place to prosecute offenders and we were told that once it was passed the terraces would again be open to all. So why are certain classes still being locked out now?

But why should the Council allow free use of the facility anyway? When parking charges are being used in other car parks, why can't we charge hourly and daily rates to use these amenities too?

Warning signs of prosecution for wild camping will certainly stop most law abiding motor homers since one of their first questions is 'can I legally stay here over night?' But banning them during the day is pure discrimination.

I have sought legal advice too. Apparently to bar disabled and disadvantaged from any council amenity is a no no too.

Please do cause a review this policy urgently since summer is nearly here.


The Leader: Dear Mr Peat

I acknowledge receipt of your e mail.

I cannot agree with your criticism of 2 councillors who are merely trying to address the legitimate concerns of residents and other coastal visitors.
This is a matter for local determination by those elected to do so which has been a long running issue.


Martin Hill

We reply: Hi Mr Hill,

I can assure you that I am already far too busy with voluntary community and charity work to have any need to involve myself with something else so I could do without fighting official discrimination.

The councillors have confessed that this discriminatory action against a whole class of holiday maker was on behalf of the Huttoft Parishes. .

You also seem to be ignoring the rude allegations and assumptions being made about me in their responses and that this latest string of correspondence is about a press article and letter, instigated by Councillor Palmer, childishly threatening to close the terraces if he and Councillor Davie's barriers continue to be damaged. We know that it was a dishonest empty threat but in making it, the councillor wasn't representing council policy at all and has made it look churlish and silly.

I have rudely been told to 'stop council bashing'. So self righteous that they must always be right, Councillors Davie and Palmer see valid comment and astonishment at their own comments as of the Council. They clearly think they are the Council. They are not and the Council should not be bound by their errors either.

So are you all saying that having been able to enjoy these facilities as a resident for 20 years with family days on the coast, I have no right to be upset to suddenly find its been removed because I and thousands like me are wrongly associated with nuisances? Then to not only have dismissive unsympathetic responses but very rude remarks about my motives too.

Please do remind all Councillors that they stood for election, we vote, and then pay for them. We are the customers so please refrain from rudeness and a high handed superior attitude when someone is trying to draw your attention to an oversight that needs addressing.

I think that it stems from a total misunderstanding as to what motor caravanning is mostly about. Sleeping is just one part but 99% is actually touring around and spending time, whether a couple of hours or a whole day at visitor spots with all the comforts and conveniences like toilets, cookers, a fridge a place to change etc. That is what we pay for with these expensive vehicles.

It is a total lack of understanding about a rapidly growing holiday and tourist choice. Do you think commercial theme parks and leisure parks ban them? Auschwitz car park allows MHs to overnight and has no height restrictions. Do you think Norfolk Broads rents out 45 foot ten people cruisers and then only allows little motor boats at all the points of interest? Motor Caravanning is exactly the same. Now this all could've been explained before the barriers were erected except the very people concerned were never consulted but those with no interest in the subject were. So now let's be considered for the summer.

These coastal facilities are not just about Huttoft they are about Lincolnshire tourism. This is a coastal tourist area. Why buy a house near the sea then moan because people want to be there? But the problem is caused by the Council failing to manage and control these large areas. Of course, if there is no clear enforcement going on, where people want to be, things will get out of hand. Of course, if there is no apparent reason not to, why wouldn't people overnight if it's legal? So now, with the by-law and good warning of prosecution signs, as well as prosecution, you have the means to deter most of it and prosecute those who ignore the regulations.

Yes let's work together and open the barriers to all during daylight hours or better still just let the by-law do its stuff.



Friday, 11 April 2014

Lincolnshire Against Motorhome Barriers (LAMB) Page.

At the behest of two Lincolnshire County councillors feathering their local nests and becoming hero's to local parishes, Lincolnshire has now banned Motor Homes from access to its beach terraces. See the story here. 

You will be able to see from the following exchanges that the councillors involved are totally unmoved by any reasonable appeal and take the well known position, of every dogmatic and pedantic politician, which is to not only fail to consider reason, but actually to treat new information as unwelcome mail and take their ball away too. 

'I am not prepared to go into a pointless circle of arguments with you..' 

'Exactly. You have taken selective and discriminatory action against a whole class of resident and holidaymaker, and will not entertain objection and appeal.' 

Oh dear he now writes a rambling dis-jointed letter to the press, first denying a threat to close terraces then re-iterating it again. See press cuts  Here

Busy enough in the community already, I was rather hoping these councillors would see reason and review options. Having talked Lincolnshire into erecting costly barriers, I suppose it's asking too much for them to confess they hadn't researched this enough. 

Society cannot have it both ways. It cannot legalise motor home ownership, tax it, place levies on it and then say they are not welcome at places other people can take for granted.

This seems to be a UK only problem. I have never come across it anywhere else and have successfully had rules changed in the Caravan Club and other areas since I first opposed these discriminatory barriers. All councils should be against them; not using them themselves!

So this page is dedicated to motor home barriers and let's start with Lincolnshire.   

Letter to Sutton on Sea 1st Resident's Association.
 Hi Joyce and Adrian, 
  Thanks for allowing me for the first time to put a case to the 
 Association which at least brings a new dimension to the issue of the 
 height barriers and hopefully enough to bring about a review of policy 
 towards them that is not based solely on input of those who have no 
 interest in motor caravanning. 
 I did not have the advantage of Stephen's letter in advance but would 
 like to address three aspects of it. 
 He confirms that he has acted for and in the interests of small local 
 communities and their Parochial councils. The beaches and the coast, as 
 well as the a amenities there, belong to the whole of Lincolnshire and 
 are tourist amenities. It is totally improper for them to be managed 
 for and in the interest of locals only. 
 Again he repeats the threat of closing the terraces entirely. That 
 sound very churlish. 'Have my barriers or we shut it all down'. Yes by 
 all means. Shutting them to all would be fair. But he and Councillor 
 Davie know full well that they would alienate the whole community by 
 doing that so it is an empty threat. Unfairly picking on one type of 
 user is silly. Anyone can camp out in a 4 x 4, low Transit van, or 
 camping trailer and these barriers cant prevent that. 
 A Mablethorpe business man took time to ring me today and congratulate  my letter in The Leader. He said 'These councillors don't know what  they're doing. They need voting out. These vehicles bring business to our area' Another has cancelled his holiday in Lincolnshire. 

 Stephen has asked for The Association to support the LCC in this. I suspect he really means himself. 

These barriers, have cost the LCC a lot of money so I can understand the Councillors behind them being reluctant to admitting they didn't think it through too well. As a founder member of the Association I am asking for it to support the By-Law. The re-instatement of the attendants to manage the terraces so the barriers can be opened during the day, various charges to cover the costs, and prosecution of any type of caravan after hours and of course no discrimination against tax and ratepayers during daylight hours at least. 

I hope that the Councillors will compromise on this and look at it again but somehow from the remarks they are making I doubt it. 


Unsolicited response from Cllr Palmer. 

 Dear Keith, 
 I am not going to go down the endless circle of emails with you again 
 however I think I can see convergence of agreement on some points. 

 However again you corrupt my meanings. I have not advocated the closing of the terrace. I merely gave advanced  warning of the possible result of the lawless actions of some motor 
 homers who I call Freeloaders and I will keep calling Freeloaders  because that is what they are. 

If Cllr. Davie did close the terrace and  be in no doubt the County Council own it and could, I would be against it and would be in opposition to that but there would be no doubt in my 
mind who caused the problem. 

The facilities are not just there for the use of Lincolnshire people 
they are there for all who come from all over the country and abroad 
 but it is the people of Lincolnshire who pay for its upkeep. It is the 
 people of East Lindsey that pay for the toilets. It is the people of 
 Huttoft who have been threatened with violence, have had threats made 
 against their loved ones, their pets and it is normal day tourists who 
 have been intimidated by these freeloaders. 
I am the county councillor 
for Huttoft and I have a duty to listen to their concerns and the 
concerns of the small businesses that are the backbone of Lincolnshire 
tourist economy who feel they are being short changed in their 
investment to tourism locally.

I totally reject your implication the terrace is being managed for the interests of the local community only, however I will not tolerate having their lives ruined by the activities of a few lawless motor home owners. If you don't believe me go down and talk to those living nearest to the terrace and ask there opinions on  motor home owners, they live in dread of the summer season coming. Why are most of the houses up for sale in what would appear to many to be an idyllic spot to live? 

You are quite right people in smaller vehicles could camp out but they  are not the historical problem it is those in large vehicles who are; the ones who have lived on the terrace for long periods entrenching themselves and taking pseudo ownership. Perhaps you should give your attention to them and tell them to stop their criminal behaviour after 
all it is them who are putting the reputations of motor home owners in this area in jeopardy. 

I find your remarks offensive that you think that I ask for support of myself, if you knew me at all you would know I put myself last in  everything. I work as a councillor 7 days a week most weeks and even now I am answering this email and others while down in Bath with my daughter who has a medical problem at this time that requires my and my wife's support. So please don't ever accuse me of that. 

One man has rung you in support of your letter, please!,, I have told you before the people are fed up with what has gone on at the terrace and the good will I have received in the attempts by LCC to control it even if a few think those attempts are misguided or the wrong solution. Do you really think that the option of having site attendance personnel 
in place and prosecution of offenders is not considered? Do you know 
how much that would cost? Not just at Huttoft but at the other sea  terrace sites along the coast? However it is still being talked about as an option.

Finally I am pleased you are calling for support of the by laws, but charging people to use the terrace I disagree with and would not be necessary at this time if some people in motor homes did not abuse the privilege that was offered them and why should everyone else pay 
because of problems caused by a few freeloaders. Come and enjoy the sight and sea views and then go to a proper facility for overnight stays that would truly benefit the local economy or in your case and  other locals back to home. Simple. Then there would not be a need for barriers, attendants, or paying.

Come on Keith use your influence and the DU on these fellow motor home users to bring them into line and  stop the council kicking, acknowledge there is a problem and who it is 
caused by, work with and not against authorities. If you do that it would help me influence the barrier situation. I am asking Cllr. Davie  to leave the right barrier off and just leave the left barrier up so  cars can go to that side, as it's the smaller and not big enough for 
motor homes anyway. If the people causing the problems do not stay over 
night then there will be no need to put the barrier up again would there? 

I think we can work together on this and I am willing to meet with you 
to discuss further. I have ideas of my own as well and it involves more 
than just the terraces but all council owned car parks with toilet 
facilities throughout the county in making them more motor home 
friendly and encouraging law abiding motor home based tourism to 

Best Regards 
Steve Palmer 

My reply: 

Dear Steve, 

 Again your tone is rather dismissive, entrenched, and dictatorial. I 
 have merely Cc,'d you in from politeness but it is my right to alert 
 the Association about a local issue which is now arising and to clear up 
 some misapprehensions they had until now. 
Your request for the Association to support LCC was a request to support 
your position. The LCC's duty is not to discriminate against any tax 
and ratepayers. 
You did totally ignore the people who are motor homers and did not 
consult them at all. Had you done so, this option would have been 
discounted for very good reasons; not least disabled users and indeed 
special needs coaches being excluded from our beaches. We are now only 
just reacting to the barriers since we had no prior input but you are objecting to any valid concerns about them. 
I have explained to you endlessly but you do not hear, that most of 
 us are not freeloaders, we pay to stay on sites and we pay to enjoy the 
same facilities as everyone else. 
I object to your generalisation of violent behaviour by vehicle type 
 user too. In any case how many people from the area have been 
 threatened? Who accosted who first? Are you saying they were just 
 passing by and minding their own business when this happened or,as 
 I suspect, were the instigators of the confrontation? 
Since you are relating these claims,I take it you don't mind giving chapter and verse and 
indeed details of police action too. 

I am also informed that these massive areas completely full of 
motor homes is an exaggeration too. Can you supply times, dates and any 
other evidence to back these claims? Did anyone photograph these 
 Car parks are often full of cars too. So what? Why a distinction? All have paid rates, purchase tax and vehicle excise so it's about first come first served then. But what about vans that have the same footprint of a large car like mine? How am I taking up more 
space? In any case why height restrictions if ground space is the issue? 

Height restriction can only affect occupancy. When there are multiple issues, then it does smack of a dislike of a particular vehicle or lifestyle. So what was it? Overnighting or space or violence or refuse? There is an appearance of a concocted case. 

Surely The Association should have details of these claims to support a draconian policy. 

Yes these terraces are a County tourist facility and not to be managed for the locals in the Huttoft area at all. The problems they have been experiencing is entirely down to the Council policy of not managing the sites. 

Of course you cannot expect to abandon a massive hard standing next to the sea without all sorts of undesirables moving in. Its a no brainer and a Council failure. To try to mitigate that by discrimination is totally inappropriate. 
I am getting lots of support about this matter and when site owners realise you are banning their customers from enjoying the coast' as they soon will, why on earth will they be pleased with you? 

Haven't you noticed the amount of touring motor homes around our coast in the summer? 'Lincolnshire bans motor homes from the coast' has to be an irrational maxim for a coastal tourist area. More and more people are using them and it's time we got used to that and considered them more now. 
 Motor Homes are a reality; especially in a tourist area and they bring money with them too. It is this money that maintains our hamlets too. This is a holiday county and we residents should understand that. 
There is not one motor homer who wouldn't support me. 
It's not us who dispensed with parking attendants to control the terraces but the Council and the problem started there. 
I am not a councillor so it's not for me to solve the problem of wild campers but discrimination against high vehicles, now a common and accepted form of vacation, is certainly not acceptable. Until government and authorities make it illegal to own and run them but on the contrary, continue to accept the taxes and levies on them, then they cannot legitimately bar them and treat them differently from any other private user and not expect uproar if they do. 
Believe me I am far too busy working for drivers on a national basis and local church and charity fundraising to need this issue on my doorstep too but I do like to go to the terraces have a swim and a nice mobile beach hut to change in. And when the grand kids are here why cant we take our mobile beach hut there for a day? That's exactly the concept of motor homing. I have been fighting these barriers in the UK for years now with some success. 
Even the Caravan Club were locking motor homers in or out after 8 PM on London sites. Of course caravanners were able to pass under to enjoy evenings out in their cars. So even that club hadn't twigged that, when on tour, it's the motor homer's only means of transport. I was successful and now the barriers don't operate till 11 PM. But why is it not like it anywhere else except the UK? 
It's rather ironic that the lead councillor for height barriers happens to share the ward of a lead campaigner against them .I would be most happy to meet with you if the outcome is the immediate un banning of motor homes during the daylight hours. 
For what it's worth, I am certain the prospect of prosecution, even clamping, will deter the vast majority of those who have hitherto taken advantage of the free open space. Being illegal does have an impact on where most of us stop at any time. First question is always 'can we stay here legally?' Then prosecute any others still on site. 

Why should these terraces be free anyway? Up to £10 per day £2 per hour £4 per 3 hours would be very reasonable and would help pay for any control. 

Cllr Palmer:

Hello Keith, 
Like I said at the start of this email chain I am not prepared to go into a pointless circle of arguments with you again. You think I am entrenched, take a step back and have a look at what you say. 
Anyway it is pointless and I will just have to except and agree to differ. 
Thank you for your comments they are noted. I have informed the portfolio holder of your position. 


Exactly. You have taken selective and discriminatory action against a whole class of resident and holidaymaker, and will not entertain objection and appeal. 
Including my last response to your unsolicited reply, how big is this email train you are complaining of? And bearing in mind, I am writing for thousands of us? 
In this weeks Leader, there were two other letters against you too. 
It is you who have instigated these barriers because the Council had abandoned these open spaces. 
You now have the legal means to control the sites without discrimination but are refusing point blank and are thus entrenched in failing to accept your policy was ill conceived and discriminating against holiday makers along our coast. 
That is why I am now going over your head to The Association, The Council, and the Media. 
If you wish to re-consider other options please do let me know. 

See corres with Council leader Here

See the Palmer press statements on closing the terraces totally and readers letters. Here 

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Drivers wake up. Cyclists are lobbying candidates.

Wake up drivers Here cyclists lobby councillors. There are 35 million drivers and 60 million who depend on them. That's massive voting power.

London drivers, look at these wards and ensure drivers come first in them. Don't let the cycle lobby have things all to themselves.

Look your driving is as important as your home to you isn't it? So why let others dictate the terms of driving to you?

Outside London? Far too many councils are run by green anti driver ideologists.

Find out if your candidates is all for drivers before voting for them at the next elections.

Saturday, 5 April 2014

20 Zones survey

BRAKE 'the charity' in its hostile anti driver way of being a green lobby group says their survey resulted in 80% for 20 MPH zones.

Some media even splashed that as 'all Britain wants them'.

I have already raised the issue of amateurs polling amateurs in road safety many times and posted on this Brake survey Here.

Well Drivers Union is doing a proper survey on 20 zones and including in the questions the aspects that ought to be considered when deciding on them. 

BRAKE, 20's Plenty, Living Streets have massive followings and we can't stop them flooding polls they don't like. It's pretty obvious when people vote for money to go to 20 zones in preference to the NHS to save more lives and keep us healthier, then they are either cranks, dishonest, or both isn't it? But such is democracy. So it is important for all drivers to get this survey spread to as many reasoned people as possible. It's about time reasoned people had more say in their driving isn't it?

The survey is quick and it's here. The reasoned 20 zone questions

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Sky fall for BRAKE propaganda.

At it again. A poll of the inexpert by the inexpert with a green ideological agenda.

Drivers why do you allow these people to hamper and prosecute you?

We write to.
Dear Sir, I am appalled that in the life and death issue of road safety and also prosecutions, as well as the costly over-slowing of UK's infrastructure, on the subject of 20 Zones you defer to BRAKE who are not experts and with an ideological green agenda against motoring. 

The contributor you used, clearly not an independent expert either, was evoking non existent children and non existent accidents on the basis of Ministry of Guesswork statements. You would need hundreds of child strikes at exactly 40 MPH and 20 MPH for his remarks to have been factual. Do you like to mislead your viewers like that?

Any police driving expert would prefer, in busy congested streets, drivers to be focusing on outside the vehicle rather than worrying about points and a needle inside the vehicle.

Brake's poll is false. A poll of the inexpert by the inexpert and of course anyone wants to live in a quiet cul de sac so hence the false figure. Had they been asked 'do you believe in blanket 20 limits on streets where there are no accidents at all? ' I am sure the poll would be opposite. Or 'Would you prefer your kiddie hit at 20 MPH or at the lower speed the driver would've already selected without 20 limits?'

So we are to blanket thousands of streets on a purely green agenda so that drivers will now be prosecuted for not driving green enough? Then of course the profiteers of the the speed awareness courses, where in Wales alone two limited companies are earning £500,000 a month from this illegal scam.

When will Sky learn, that road safety policy will never be appropriate when based on ideology and or profit? This can only happen when any Tom Dick & Harry without any CV in the subject is promoted by media. 

Now take our informed survey Here

I am always available to give impartial independent expertise on driver issues and my CV can be found at
Keith Peat