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

Thursday, 31 December 2015

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.  

Friday, 25 December 2015

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.

Wednesday, 16 December 2015

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

5th 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?


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. 

Sunday, 29 November 2015

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.

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.   

Saturday, 14 November 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:  

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

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. 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 & 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.


Keith Peat

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

Monday, 9 November 2015

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?

Friday, 30 October 2015

Colin Murray on Slavery.

Can I ask Colin Murray not to be subjective when talking about race issues? I do understand that, to remain a broadcaster nowadays, it's not possible to always be objective. 

In the discussion about black football managers, Colin said that the black race were the only people to be subject to slavery in recent history. That is wrong. 

Let's start by defining slavery and getting it into perspective. It used to be about ancient Egypt or the Romans where, being strapped to large machines and masonry or shackled to the oars of a galley and whipped until dead and replaced by the next poor soul, so how does that compare with being with family picking cotton in Alabama or as house servants in Georgia?

At that time, my English ancestors were being treated much worse and exploited too in much colder conditions by the very same aristocracy. Hungry kiddies in mines or up chimneys or in middens. Men with family and responsibilities press ganged away on meagre rations and pay never to be seen or heard of again whilst their families were left to starve. So no Colin, slavery wasn't just confined to blacks at all. But even then, much of the slave traders were black too as indeed they are even today. 

My ancestors  were not behind slavery or the potato famine in Ireland either for that matter as they were suffering just as badly too. 

I know that Talk Sport are honest and Colin is an honest man. If he cannot be objective and honest as a broadcaster then he should avoid commenting at all if he isn't to be just another subjective propagandist.

I would love a reply.

Best wishes.

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Why we wouldn't recommend Paul Dawson Driving School to anyone.

A self evident principle being ignored that results in much death and injury. Reduce the need to overtake= less overtake attempts=less head on overtake crashes. Why is that being ignored by the authorities and Road Safety Industry?

The following sequence of videos are astonishing in that they show a driving school, presumably on a lesson, teaching a pupil how to drive at 40 MPH on the A 52 trunk road, in a continuous and clear 60 limit, ignoring the resulting tail-back which is driving without due care.

Not only does this type of driving result in a need to overtake and the subsequent overtake crashes that all too frequently result, if it is a learner, the pupil isn't being taught to drive properly with no deviation in side roads, also relieving A52 drivers, over some 9 miles that I had witnessed. They may have pootled along a lot further than that. How is that good for a learner?

The point is Paul, if the student isn't ready to drive on trunk roads, take them off them until they have become much more proficient and competent. Industrial estates in the area are ideal for new drivers. 

Of course there may have been a fault with the car. There was certainly a fault somewhere it seems.

We certainly don't recommend Paul Dawson Driving School for locals of East Lindsey. Here is their site to avoid.

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

North Yorkshire Police cannot acknowledge 'Speeding' or Dangerous Driving

In this following tweet by North Yorks Police Traffic officers, they refuse to define dangerous driving or speeding and yet revert to non legal terms that confuse the reader instead.

'In the three years to 2010, excessive or inappropriate speed was responsible for 24% of all road deaths in North Yorkshire.' #TrafficCops

How can it be good for road safety to confuse accident causes, like dangerous driving, with non accident causes like 'speeding'? Do see a full explanation Here.

We have been exposing this stunt for years and ask that only the legal states of speed are cited to avoid confusion. There are only three and they adequately cover all aspects of speed accident causes. No-one can disagree with pure physics and claim that speeding can cause an event when dangerous driving is the cause. 

It's clearly a deliberate use of confusing language to promote the Speeding Industry. The result is that dangerous and careless driving are excluded from Fatal 4 campaign, drivers at 100 MPH and more are often not charged with dangerous driving until they kill someone, and why Stats 20 forms include speeding as an accident cause when it isn't, See it here and genuine and real accident causes are actually ignored, even denied, to focus on speeding revenue.

Don't Yorks and other police care about genuine road safety? Don't they want to be truthful and honest about speed?

Let's just be told about either 'speeding' or dangerous driving as appropriate. 'Driving too fast' is an element of dangerous driving so even that is an appropriate alternative. We will understand. 

Let's be honest about speed. 

It seems NYP have a record of confusing their public about road safety and not beyond using bereaved to do so too. See here.

Monday, 19 October 2015

IAM support subjective fixed penalty prosecution.

In this Derby Telegraph story There have been nearly 1000 careless driving ticket 'convictions' in Derbys since the subjective careless driving became a fixed penalty offence. No less than 17000 in England & Wales.

Can anyone explain how, if the driving wasn't careless before the FP, how does FP suddenly make it so? It doesn't. All it does is hand a blank cheque to police at the expense of justice.

We objected to fixed penalty, for the first time in its history, for being used for offences of subjective opinion. Prior to that, it was only used for absolute actions: Parked on a yellow line, stationary in a yellow box, speeding, driving through a red light, dropping rubbish, not clearing up doggy do doos and so forth. It was never intended for subjective opinion as that is all that careless driving is. Now, just on the untested opinion of police, people are accepting guilt for careless driving without a trial. Of course they are being coerced to accept the tickets by threat of a larger penalty and a ban for insisting on their right to trial, and of course the offer of the profitable and costly courses to avoid prosecution too. See the case we made out at the time & A profiteer's charter

In this story, they are talking of 'tailgating' and lane discipline. but not only are they totally subjective too, they are not offences in their own right. It's either careless driving or not because that is the offence on the ticket. Pet driver hates, like these, were only used with the media to get careless driving turned into a fixed penalty offence.

What is astounding is that the IAM, are supporting this totally anti driver move that allows for mere subjective opinion to become absolute with no trial and also do not seem to know that there are no such offences as 'tailgating' and 'lane hogging' simply because they are so subjective they cannot be defined. 

Monday, 12 October 2015

The false police form that feeds the Speeding Industry profiteers.

Let's get one thing clear. It is a scientific fact that 'speeding', that is to exceed an arbitrarily selected number on a pole, cannot cause anything to happen. Physics could not support the notion that, if a driver exceeds a number, there will be a reaction and consequence. 
Don't believe me? Then check it out yourself with physicists. In the meantime please note that, over the years I have been explaining this, not one official authority, including the police, have been able to deny the point; even though it goes right to the heart of speed cameras, speed awareness courses and such things as 'Speed Kills!' or The Fatal 4 initiative. See a full explanation.

Speed related offences are only 'Speeding', dangerous driving and careless driving. Driving too fast is an element of dangerous driving and because it happens at any speed, including below the limit, it cannot be 'speeding'. This is why there is no such offence as causing death or injury by speeding. 

The Transport Select Committee
 are currently asking for submissions to their inquiry on speed cameras and the following submission to them is an example of a completely false premise about 'speeding'.

Re Stats19/20 'causation data greatly understates the significance of speeding in accident causation because officers are reluctant to tick the “likely” or “possible” boxes unless they were confident that their assessment would stand up in court*. 

Except that we know that speeding cannot be an 'accident causation'  at all. 
Stats 19 form
Here are the instructions to accident reporting officers on 'speeding'

Actual Stats 19/20 instructions are: '306 Exceeding speed limit Driver/rider caused, or contributed to the accident, by exceeding the posted speed limit. This code should also be used in cases where the actions of another road user were the immediate cause of the accident but a speeding vehicle also contributed to causing the collision. Includes exceeding variable speed limits (eg. on motorways) and speed limits based on vehicle type (including towing).'

The above is totally false and below, they're deliberately mixing 'too fast'(dangerous driving) with 'speeding' Driving too fast is dangerous driving at any speed, above and below the limits.

'Use this code (not code 307) if driver/rider was exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions. 

307 Travelling too fast for conditions Driver/rider was travelling within the speed limit, but their speed was not appropriate for the road conditions and/or vehicle type (including towing), and contributed to the accident'

So police officers are being instructed to submit false statements about accident causes.

And this is the basis of so much profitable prosecution of perfectly safe drivers and the coercive Speed Awareness courses that do not tell drivers the truth either.

But it is also highly dangerous too. When dangerous and careless driving, which do cause accidents, are excluded from the fatal 4 initiative and speeding is included, what better example is there of ignoring real accident causes for profitable non accident causes? See here

How much will it take to get this form corrected when there is so much profit being made from it? 

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Another costly road safety bun-fight for Road Safety Industry self promotion

Oh how the Great and The Good of policing and the multi billion pound Road Safety For Profit Industry have flocked to the latest road safety bun-fight at public expense of course. Run by an outfit called T.I.S.P.O.L This is their site here.   Based in the UK of course where it seems that for road safety money is no object. See some of it here.  Partly funded by the EU, that means us folks, and presumably the rest funded by the UK tax payer one way or another.

Not one to miss rubbing shoulders with top people and ex's paid self promotion, was of course Edmund King  See his interest in speeding profit here

But look at the police salivating at King's Poll, by the vested interests of the uninformed, to produce the results on speed cameras and speed awareness courses, (in the Tweet below), to keep them all in business.

A classic example of the money go round of the speeding profiteers producing dubious justification for the Speeding Industry to cite and thus round and round the money goes at the expense of genuine road safety.

Notwithstanding that, given King's and the AA's fiscal interest in speeding, thus morally disqualifying him from any reputable  platform, he never the less was invited to peddle his wares at the TISPOL2015 conference.

Of course we all should accept speed cameras as part of a toolbox so, that only 77% said they did in the AA poll, is already an indictment but the question should be 'do you accept the improper use of speed cameras?' I doubt if the answer would be 77% saying 'yes' to that?

Likewise 'do you support coercion to accept guilt?' or 'Do you support speed awareness courses that don't teach the truth?' Or 'Do you accept profiteering from speeding tickets?' Or 'Would you rather not get the ticket in the first place than be coerced onto a profitable dishonest course?' Then I am sure not many would have voted positively to that either.

What is a shock is that any police group think that road safety and prosecution policy should be based on the polling by profiteers and vested interests of the uninformed with no CV in the subject.  

How much has this cost us? Why not FOI your police force to find out who attended and what was their total expenses and salary cost in doing so?

Here are some more Tweets on the Conference.

Sunday, 4 October 2015

Edmund King. Pro driver? Or profiteer and anti driver ideologist impostor?

Edmund King President of AA
'AA boss accused of pocketing millions from speed awareness courses' 

I am not jumping on The Bandwagon because anyone who follows my work will know that I have challenged and criticised King for years and indeed this post in Nov 2012 proves  how I was three years ahead of the Mirror & Sun.  

A keen cyclist, King loves to promote himself (and boy does King promote himself), as a voice of the caring driver for the Cycle Lobby which loves him. Of course it does. Anyone who is going to reduce an essential infrastructure of 35 million people to the same level as an unessential pursuit, minority, lobby group is bound to be an injustice to the former and an advantage to the latter. Added to which of course in no way can cyclists be good for drivers. They are an enforced liability and encumbrance the like of which that wouldn't be foisted on rail or air transport. Collide with one and drivers could be looking at a long term of imprisonment. 

So why would AA and King be so keen on cycling if it's to the disadvantage of drivers at all? Well King's background is he is ex RAC Foundation. See a bit of them here. No friends of the private car drivers so it's not surprising that King brings with him his pro cycling credentials. So far as the AA are concerned, more cycling means less car damage to fix and indeed cyclists are cynically being told to use their unprotected bodies two abreast, to impede and dictate their slow speeds on drivers. All of this is definitely an advantage to a driver insurance company which is what AA is. They support speed cameras too. Not withstanding that anyone profiting from them would do, as with using cyclists, slowing everything down plus points on licences causing higher premiums, also results in less work for more money. For an insurance company, it's all win win then. 

The fact is that, because AA fix cars, it doesn't mean that they're a driver's group. They sell cycling gear, fix plumbing, sell insurance and are too diverse to be considered a drivers' group now.

It should be of no surprise then that King presented himself, with other cycling lobbyists, to a Parliamentary Transport Select Committee and claimed to be representing drivers. See the disgrace of how this committee failed us all. Even from his own comments to the committee, he could hardly be speaking for drivers there. But what was significant was the moment when he told Madam Chair that we ought to have more Awareness Courses without telling her that he was a director of one of the busiest of the firms running them. Even the Sun & The Mirror didn't uncover that one. I did.

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

20 Zones counter productive for schools.

I am totally against 20 MPH compulsory limits outside schools. 

I prefer that drivers drive to the circumstances and select their own speeds which will, more often than not, be lower than 20 MPH. In fact, when passing a school at school  times, 20 MPH can be too fast.

In a 30 MPH limit, a driver passing a school at 30 MPH may not be breaking the limit but could be charged with dangerous driving were there to be an accident. That is less likely if the authorities have taken responsibility away from drivers, imposed a 20 limit and an accident occurs at 20 MPH. It's the dumbing down effect of putting up a sign implying that 20 MPH is safe. One can hardly then charge a driver who has complied. What will certainly happen, as in all 20 zones, because of dumbing down, average speeds will increase. 

Then of course is the knotty problem of a 20 MPH limit in operation 24/7 365 days a year. Schools do not operate over those periods. Would it be fair to prosecute drivers for exceeding 20 MPH at 3 am on Christmas morning?  

There is nothing wrong with the school zone 20MPH advisory system. Oh yes they are not mandatory and exceeding 20 MPH at school times may not be speeding, but it could still be dangerous driving. So be warned. These 20 Limit advisorys still have a punitive power. Killing a child while exceeding an advisory limit could still result in 14 years in jail.  

Thursday, 24 September 2015

The war on the UK driver thrives.

17th Sep 15 Anti driver MPs screaming for longer jail terms for drivers. We cover it here. and Here is the Hansard report on it.

10th Sep 15 There is currently a Transport Committee Consultation on driver sentencing and driving law. See our submission here and  Here is the paper

12th Sep 15 DEFRA launches air quality paper in which motorists are to be encouraged to stop motoring, taking us back thousands of years to manpower only transport, to walk and cycle instead, but also to force electric cars on the community. See their paper here. 

So how much evidence do drivers need to get united to preserve their lifestyle and overrule the liberal elitists running our country?

Click here for: Motorists & Drivers' Union and see how to preserve drivers.

Friday, 18 September 2015

Being a lawyer makes me an expert driver says Karl Turner MP

Wake up drivers. To these MPs you are an enemy of the state not people with an outstanding safety record struggling to keep the community viable and thriving.

Drivers, read this parliamentary debate to get you more jail.  17th Sep 15.

It's that Alok Sharma again. From our archives he was at it last November too. Why did drivers re-elect him? We explained here why he was wrong then. 
Alok Sharma

Oh yes the self promoting fool Karl Turner, (Lab Hull) had his two pennorth. Recalling his failed attempt to get drivers jailed for just having an accident and his rapport with PM David Cameron, who had seemed to agree with Karl, that being an ex barrister
Karl Turner
 somehow made him a driving and road safety expert.
 More on that here.

Yes the case cited, involved cyclists. None of these MPs seem to think that people in the road, exposed to complete strangers of varying mental capacity and skill, operating big machines, is a bad idea to start with. Perhaps if they were not so anti driver and really interested in life saving, they would start there.

The guy had been drinking and doing 70 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and got 10 years. Like any other convict, 'he has no right to appeal his sentence because he's a driver' according to these anti driver MPs.  

Unlike a shooter, who deliberately picks out individuals before he fires his gun, drivers, including this one, didn't intend to kill anyone. We explained here why there's a difference 'When a road accident or crash occurs, any and all subsequent deaths are part of the same unintentional event.'

Then there is the anti driver Happy Jim Fitzpatrick. 'It is now pass'e to call an accident an accident' he says. So on that basis many millions that could save more lives on and off the road can be devoured looking for someone to blame.

In this case, the deliberate element was to drink and possibly, at that point, not to drink too much. Having drunk too much, everything else was caused by it. The irrational decision to drive, then to drive at 70 MPH in a 30 limit was not an intended or even a conscious act by then. But there's no shred of evidence of intent to crash and kill people. So yes they have cited a conveniently extreme case and the driver got 10 years but he didn't go out to kill anyone, let alone two. Even in this extreme case, there was an element of 'accident'. A sentence, as of manslaughter, in this case would make 10 years seem reasonable; not to anti driver politicians though.

But generally, dangerous driving is a matter of subjective opinion. 'It is the only law, as well as its sister careless driving, that is based and relies totally on the evidence of hostile and unqualified witness subjective opinion. (See no fixed penalty for careless) In any other offence with long sentences, these witnesses would only be allowed to give evidence of fact and not opinion. The only witnesses of opinion would be expert witnesses in any other such trial. So for drivers, even the balance of evidence is severely reduced to the views of 'a competent driver'. In other words not an expert driver, but in effect any driver that drives. And on that we can put people away for 14 years. So you can be jailed for 14 years by the opinion of hostile non expert witness.'

These MPs do not see that in allowing, encouraging and condoning a dangerous concept and scenario, they are as culpable as anyone else when it goes wrong.   

Manslaughter, which allows for life terms, would seem to be a very appropriate charge for this type of road death where irresponsible conduct is the cause so that a distinction can be made for death by dangerous driving which is far too subjective. It's very significant that death by dangerous driving was created because juries shied away from the long penalties of manslaughter charges. They didn't agree with long terms for accidental acts. Now the anti driver brigade are dissatisfied with the 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. This driver could've been charged with manslaughter if prison terms are the object.

These MPs are using an extreme case to achieve long sentences for unintentional acts generally.  The problem is that there are many naturally atrocious drivers, who think they are great and that their driving is faultless: We all know them.

Where were our driver defenders to stand up for drivers in this debate and point all this out?

Wake up drivers. To these MPs you are an enemy of the state not people with an outstanding safety record struggling to keep the community viable and thriving.