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

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

So the more who cycle & the less who drive kills more cyclists?

In this BBC story  We see that back in 1934 when there were far less drivers, and especially car drivers, and many more cyclists there were far more cycling deaths on GB's roads. In fact  1536 cyclists died then compared to 109 in 2014. And this was when there were far fewer people living here too.

To get this in perspective, in 2013 there were a total of 1713 road deaths of all types so with more drivers and driver journeys and less cyclists, far less of all types are dying and certainly far less cyclists are dying too.

So what is a fact here. When there was far less driving and much more cycling far more cyclists were being killed. In fact 14 times more were being killed than now. So who was killing them then?

Perhaps we should just look at the concept for the answer:

'Why do we also ignore that road cycling is placing one's unprotected body, high up on two slender wheels at unnatural speeds, among and competing with large essential relatively fast moving machines, operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity? That is road cycling in a nutshell. Would humans normally behave like that unless it were cycling? If the concept were only just being suggested and proposed now, we would send for the men in white coats. How can politicians and the media ignore the reality and encourage more to do it?'

Are we failing to see the obvious? What is killing cyclists, with or without drivers, is primarily the concept of road cycling and these figures tend to support it.

Why then are we trying to get more people on bikes and out of their cars?

2015 Cyclist death to date

And here is Rod King of 20's Plenty trying to rationalise this by ignoring the concept of road cycling as the major and primary killer.

 @DriverUnion @Pacts @transportgovuk @CommonsTrans @CCHQPress Poor, poor Keith. He doesn't realise that in 1934 cars had no speed limits!

Sunday, 28 June 2015

And here is the basis of the high earning Speeding Industry

This is an actual Statement of Reasons for a Speed Limit Order. 



·         The proposal is in line with existing County Council Policy.

·         The Chief Constable, ***** Parish Council and ********** District Council have been consulted.

Next time they tell you 'it's 30 for a reason' now you can tell them there's no reason at all.
And from this come your speeding fines, loss of licence, loss of jobs Oh and of course the very profitable speed awareness courses too

The Telegraph actually avoids the truth about cycling safety.

In this totally biased article, citing the usual pro cycling anti driver clique ironically titled The-truth-about-cycling-safety.  The Telegraph actually and ironically avoids the truth about cycling safety. 

Of course it's more cyclists that are part of the rise in road death and casualties. Even if the percentage of cyclists isn't above the casualty rise, it's the time and distance new cyclists are on the road. If this isn't pro cyclists either avoiding reality and in denial then it's not being able to connect time and distance with the casualty figures. Either way, their conclusions are suspect. 

Brake? Sustrans? CTC? Rachelle Aldred? What is their road safety and driving CV? All pro cyclist anti driver, where Aldred's Doctorship is forfeit by her rabid cycling anti driver interests. See more on Dr Rachel here.All of these contributors have an ideological anti driving background. Where was the balance in this article?

If the Telegraph fails to seek other views from outside this clique, not only can we dismiss the whole article, but worse this great newspaper is failing to truthfully address this issue at all and so more people are dying on bikes. By the way, UK 2015 cycling death is now 55.

Firstly: To be high up on two flimsy wheels travelling at unnatural speeds unprotected and exposed is as dangerous as riding a horse at speed too. Then to mix, mingle, often compete with large moving essential machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity is something sensible humans would never do, except for cyclists. If someone suggested it now, we would call out men in white coats. So Telegraph, if that definition is flawed, I would like to hear how. If not, why are you trying to avoid the reality, while people die and drivers are incarcerated for a dangerous scenario that you have promoted?

But in all this, demands to spend millions, hamper essential infrastructure with less speed and space, no one seems to notice that society, including the Telegraph, only must have walkers and drivers. The rest are just an unnecessary hazard and danger. So the question raised by this article that must be addressed is 'Why must we have cyclists?' It's a fair and reasonable question not asked by the author or the Editor it seems. But it seems the whole Metropolitan Liberal Elite are at it. See this select committee Here who accepted utter drivel and failed to ask the same question too, when awarding cyclists £650 million a year of our taxes, an average of £10 a head from every man Jack of us.

Until The Telegraph is honest enough to publish all these facts or ask reasonable questions, it can take its share of  responsibility in contributing to all these deaths and casualties.    See 2015 & 2014

The reason cyclists are dying and being maimed on the road is primarily because cyclists are............Err........ on the road isn't it? 

Rocket science it ain't.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

How the police use vague non official terms to promote speed camera policy.

In this published letter from me on Lincolnshire crashes in response to an article on Lincolnshire's most dangerous roads, there are classic examples of official misinformation tactics to keep the Road Safety Industry budget out of the budget cuts being made in other policing.

First, there was no mention of how long these roads are.

Then the use of percentages to exaggerate the rise in fatals, which, in a massive county like Lincolnshire, with many thousands of rural two way roads, can easily fluctuate by half a dozen.

The use of bereaved rears its head too.

But most important, the official use of a vague non legal term, 'speed'. There is no offence of 'speed', so what was the official really saying?
'Here we go again. Lincolnshire's Road Safety Industry making its case to stay in business again. Dangerous roads 18/6

Councillor Davies says that spending money on dualling roads will not save lives. How does he explain that not having opposing traffic on the same carriageways, as it is on the A16 and A17, will not be safer? Is he ignoring that, despite their high speeds, motorways are our safest roads? Is he really head of County transport policy?

The two roads cited are the A17 from Sutton Bridge to Beckingham a distance of about 75 Kilometres and the A16 from Spalding to Grimsby a distance of some 115 Kilometres. The gauge of whether they're dangerous should be based on dividing them into 1 Kilometre sections and then giving the figures section by section. 

Why exaggerate the fatality rise in a percentage of 43%? It is an increase of six people in a massive county with many thousands of roads. It follows exceptionally low years and previous years have been higher than this. 

Sadly we have the regulation quote from the bereaved Dave Jassie and it appalls me that bereaved are always exploited by the police as if being bereaved makes people driving and road safety experts. Doing this makes the authorities cheap and I currently have a complaint against a police force for exploiting the bereaved to promote false statements in this way.

The misleading statement here of course is that 'speed causes accidents'. Of course it does; without speed nothing would move and there would be no road death at all but we would all soon die because we cannot exist without it. John Siddle knows that 'speeding' causes nothing at all but driving too fast, most often below the limits does. His cameras can't see too fast anyway so why are they one of his options? His statement is confusing. Does he mean driving too fast? If so, let's be clear, he's not talking about speeding.

In horrendous overtaking accidents, no-one is usually 'speeding' anyway and the damage is done by closing speeds; even at 30 MPH for both vehicles, that is 60MPH. Why doesn't Councillor Davies and John Siddle consider reducing the overtakes by prosecutiong those who ignore their tailbacks for careless driving and provide passing places to encourage such drivers to pull over frequently too?.It seems to me that the police and the authorities love these rolling speed limiters who are central to so many overtake accidents. Instead of blaming drivers, let's address the scenario apparently supported by these officials.

If we reduce the need to overtake, we reduce the attempts and thus reduce the crashes. It ain't rocket science.' 

Keith Peat

Friday, 26 June 2015

Mystery. Who took down the post about North Yorks Police?

Well I didn't imagine it. There definitely was a post under the URL and indeed even a Bitly Link too. 

The story was about North Yorks Police using bereaved to promote false statements on an accident and speeding and it's disappeared?

The police know that 'Speeding' cannot cause anything. Dangerous driving does.

Gary's step daughter wasn't killed by speeding but dangerous driving.

Isn't it appalling when police use bereaved to promote their propaganda and worse, in doing so, ignore real accident causes too? In effect using Gary's step daughter, to promote profitable policy which fails to focus on real accident causes and so creates more sad cases like Gary bless him.  

Who is the official now so angry about me politely and patiently raising these truth's he is dismissing them as: 'Vexatious, oppressive, and an abuse' Is that because this goes to the very core of a multi million pound Speeding Industry? See the facts here.

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

God is a Brit.

Dear Vicar

Just to let you know, that I do enjoy expressing a different point of view from the all too heard left wing liberal elitist's views that seem to prevail and especially in the Church of England now. 

Yes I do tend to have a booming voice, God gave me that to spread his messages and it is particularly loud when being accused of being 'appalling' for standing up for my Country and its people.

For the record, the conversation was only about the logistics and options for handling all these people in France and how Australia is doing it which has reduced the attempts to zero; both issues of fact and not opinion. 

It was you who opened the debate up to the much wider issue of why it's happening and that we all sharing what we have will cure the problem. I hope it's OK in the Church of England to disagree with that and any notion that, we in Britain, should have any guilt whatsoever about our history and what God ordained.

He has intervened in our history too often for us not to claim to be God's own country now. The Armada, against all odds, the winds that wrecked Philip's massive combined fleet of France and Spain. The release from the terrible yoke of Catholicism, and the various other attempts to return us to that, Guy Fawkes, The Jacobite wars, Then two massive world wars where Britain stood against World tyranny and fascism, at one time alone, and God's intervention, The Angel of Mons & Dunkirk, (When God stayed a great army and held back the waves so his people could escape) ensured Britain survived with our own values.  The IRA, and I dare to say even Diana Princess of Wales who nearly destroyed our Monarchy but was courting Catholicism so much that, naively surrounding herself by Catholics, had become a Catholic Icon having superseded even Mother Teresa by the time of her death. Don't forget it was the republican Tony Blair (Later a convert) who dubbed her 'People's Princess' In reality, the country was forced to mourn and 'the whole country' wasn't in mourning either. There was of course Trafalgar and Waterloo also against all odds too.

Why did all this preservation of  Britain and its religious freedom happen? Can any Christian deny God's wish and hand in these events if it doesn't suit their mantras and ideology? That God only works when it suits their ideology and republican beliefs? 

 Betty didn't seem to know it was Britain that first illegalised slavery with Wilberforce and our men fought and died against it. That most slavery existed because people of those countries were and still are running slavery -the Americans were still doing it, up until Abe Lincoln - is something Britons should be aware of and proud of; not 'appalled' by the fact that we weren't . 

But your perception that we are all benefiting from oppression, servitude, slavery and exploitation needs to be challenged if you are to preach it as a minister..

You are wrong because long after the so called 'exploitation' of a far less enlightened age where you could be hung drawn and quartered, we did fight two massive and economically crippling world wars for humanity. The USA, the only country to make lots of money from both conflicts, our so called friends, bled us dry economically and thus used our debt to govern us politically too and we were paying them back until recently for it. Only five years ago an outgoing treasury minister left a note 'There's no money left'. So no, what we have now is nothing to do with the historic 'exploitation' of your view, or of mine, the advancement, improvement and education of world peoples, for the simple fact is we are broke. Do you really imagine that any politician would make swingeing cuts if he could give his people everything they wanted? So how much richer would we have been, if not giving our all? What have we gone without and given up already for others?

Most of the World's suffering is caused by despotism, corruption, dogmatic religion who exploit the poor and cause war, where even help, that we can ill afford, is diverted into armies and the corrupt bulging pocket. We have had our power taken from us by so called friends and are pretty helpless to stop all this now. But Britain has already done enough historically and is broke doing it. No we are not enjoying the fruits of a bygone age as you are postulating at all. Much has happened since The Empire.

Just be aware of patriotic British people in the congregation, unfairly labelled extremist or right wing. Expect to be challenged when postulating why Britons should feel a duty to impoverish themselves to the aid of today's corruption, despotism, exploitation and wickedness or have any guilt about it.. In any case, make your mind up. If you are against austerity here, something that isn't real by the way, how does giving everything to everyone else going to help that? It does seem to me that woolly thinking has always been the failing of the left.  

We can continue to agree or disagree but your role, and that of the church, is to welcome all views and stick to the Gospel. Let God sit inside people and responsibly apply the Gospel as God charges them to do without subjective interference and condemnation. 

Would God want that? Is God a left wing liberal elitist?

You have the advantage of preaching unchallenged from a pulpit. At all other times just sit and listen to your flock. You may learn something. 

 Historically though God has clearly shown he's a Brit. :-))


Friday, 19 June 2015

Police Chiefs in support of aggressive self appointed head cam vigilantes?

Our post on aggressive head cam vigilantes today, See it here has caused a flurry of tweets from no less than the replacement to ACPO Ltd, The National Police Chief's Council (NPCC)

You will see that there is ample evidence now that anyone videoing others with a view to ill will, and accosting and rebuking other road users, threateningly with a camera, would cause confrontation and rage and could be words and behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace.

I also raised the very valid observation that, without rigorous screening, anyone can point their camera at women and children and so head cams could also be a perverts dream too. People are pointing these cameras into the space of others. They are filming young women and kids in cars too.

Is this something UK's 35 million drivers should just accept? Well the Daily Express gave this writer some prominence & is using the term 'vigilante' too. 

The Home Office and ACPO Ltd, ignored me but now it is happening and what is the reaction from someone at NPCC to a straightforward question? See the following series of tweets.

Note: Much of this confrontation is not about any offence but mere subjective perception of cyclists. Clearly the police are seeing drivers as criminals. 

Now at this point, for some reason, the ani driver Rod King of 20s Plenty supports the police:

On this last point we are not talking about the right to film in a public place, but directing the camera at an individual without their consent, with the express intent to publish the video and to use it against them. It seems NPCC cannot see the difference. 

So drivers it seems that The NPCC is all for aggressive videoing without your consent, even when confronting you with a camera and having instigated the confrontation with some gesture, rebuke or comment. That this is bound to cause rage and reaction and road etiquette and harmony is the victim, seems less important to the police than keeping an unwelcome minority of vigilantes and camera sales people happy.

I will enquire if this is official policy and the rank of the Tweeter.  Clearly a cycling fan it seems. 

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

Resident's Parking Bays: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby is polling the wrong people.

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

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

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

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Where was the 'deliberate ram' in this video Daily Mail

See this video. Why two abreast?

So why are these cyclists two abreast where the road has a central no overtaking area marking? Do cyclists have to ride two abreast and impose their speed on others? As for deliberate? Where on earth is that in this video? Yes the overtake was deliberate and far too close.

Was there a collision that the driver was aware of? The noise of the cyclists coming off happened after the pass.

The problem is that cyclists are officially advised to use their bodies to stop anyone trying to pass them. See more here Whoever dreamed that up clearly didn't realise he's talking about vulnerable humans using their bodies to obstruct other humans in big machinery and here is the result.

Will the Mail demand a cancellation of this dangerous instruction and a new rule that cyclists must not ride two abreast? If not, then don't piously promote these videos and support the scenario that caused it.

Saturday, 6 June 2015

Let Mablethorpe be a warning to you.

Life since Pickles.
How cheating councils can misuse regulations to get around government's (Eric Pickles') 10 Minutes Grace Rule.

Welcome to Mablethorpe
All round the town of Mablethorpe, even in side streets, kerb stripes have appeared.
 This is a misuse of a regulation which is intended only for locations, where roads have narrowed, there are central reservations, or on bends and corners. 

These kerb stripes are not discretionary, no time is allowed and it's an absolute offence to be on them. No loading and unloading whatsoever is legal and customers cannot stop for short periods as allowed on yellow lines. Unlike even the one above, the Mablethorpe ban is every day throughout the year and in some cases 24 hours too.  In effect, Mablethorpe is in commercial lock down. So the private company dishing out tickets can do so 24/7.
I have tried, to no avail, to get the councillors behind this, to get them removed as they are an abuse of the system.
The history of the issue is that because yellow lines were very labour intensive to police- the precedent was 20 minutes allowed to be on them- police just lost control and councils thought they could take the job on. How they imagined that they could police Lincolnshire with just 30 wardens when the whole police force, with their massive resources couldn't, just indicates how uninformed councils could be. So councils have had to cheat. Give instant tickets on yellow lines contrary to regulations and purpose. The Government stepped in and told them, 'no more instant tickets you must give 10 minutes on yellow lines.' So I don't think it's a coincidence that the misuse of the kerb stripe system, another manifestation of cheating, is being used. But to lock down a town is not in anyone's interest.

The excuse being given to me is that it is as a result of complaint from a few anonymous whingers. But what was wrong? Were accidents being caused by yellow lines? Was Mablethorpe, High Street, Victoria Road in regular grid lock? What about the side streets? Were they grid locked? Of course the yellow lines were always occupied by people going about their business; so long as they moved on that was the idea of them. To give an idea of the enormity of this change: Blue Badge holders had previously been allowed to safely park for up to three hours on these very same roads and now they are banned.
The county councillors, who we vote in to do these jobs for us and who have instigated and  fallen for this kerb stripe stunt, are now saying that it is for me to get a massive petition to reverse it. Yet how come just a few anonymous people were enough to cause it in the first place? But what of the Town Councillors? 'Not us guv. It's not our concern what goes on in our town' So why did they stand for council if anyone else can impose this on them? It's for them to get an action going. It's their town being screwed.

I have informed the councillors that these stripes are a misuse of a regulation and not in the interests of Mablethorpe at all. They are in the interests of the firm that the LCC have contracted to issue parking tickets though. 

No loading at anytime sign. Even Sundays
Now have a look at your town and see if the same ruse is being used there. It's easy. Kerb stripes should only be where the road is narrow, a corner, or opposite a central reservation otherwise we may as well save millions in time and paint and not bother with yellow lines at all and replace them with stripes. If they are like these pictures too, then start having a go about it for goodness sake. Councillors must learn that all voters depend on drivers as do their towns. And don't let councillors pass the buck. They stood for election to serve the community and should be protecting us from such abuse. 

And here is a total contradiction. If a street can sustain any sort of bay, then clearly there is no question of danger or a traffic flow issue there. Here are kerb stripes with bays among them! 

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Road rage video explained. Latest in Chippy Cyclist news


Ok so this video of anger and rage has gone viral. Predictably the driver is deemed to be to blame even though the whole incident was precipitated by the cyclist. Let's face it, it was all just handbags. No-one was assaulted and no one was injured.

What precipitated this? Well if you see the un-clipped version of the video, shown here, it starts with several cyclists dominating the carriageway, passing each other, and dictating their speed on other road users. Isn't it interesting that when cyclists pass each other fairly fast and close, they're not being 'impatient' but when a driver does it because his potential speed loss is even greater, he's impatient? Part of the reason for all this are two stupid and subjective rules. The first is that cyclists are officially told by the DfT to use their own person to prevent motor vehicles from passing them. A principle clearly being applied here. See the rule here. See more on that here.   The other is an absolutely nonsensical subjective HighWay Code rule 163 See I explain why it's nonsense here.  

So basically cyclists are being told that they have supremacy over anyone else and clearly the results of that position is that other road users will get frustrated and annoyed at the resulting cycling conduct.. Then to add insult and injury, to abuse, accost or chide a driver who has executed a pass, 'dangerous' to the perception of the naturally insecure cyclist, is bound to provoke a reaction. 

It is just as unnerving when another cyclist passes close at speed too but that seems to be OK. Why? At least you can hear the car there but cyclists are silent and do cause a start when they pass. 

Let's get it clear. The passing speed of the car in this was very slow. He was not passing at 50 MPH. So had the cyclist come off, it would mostly be his own speed, and height from the ground that would cause the injury not any direct impact with the passing vehicle. So fast passing cyclists will cause the same reaction and accident injury too.  

But if this is so unnerving for cyclists, why keep cycling? Why come up alongside the already aggrieved driver to remonstrate as in this case? (It was during this manouvre that the cyclist struck the mirror by the way) Just let them go. Cycle or don't cycle but don't moan at others because, by definition it is dangerous. 2015 fatals so far 

It's not the job of any road user to rebuke others who may well have done nothing wrong. It seems the bravado and even the intent is encouraged by selective, one aspect, head cams. Well I did warn they would cause breach of the peace and so they are. See Head cam vigilantes

The unpalatable fact for cyclists is that they are a road hazard and one that society has no need for. Perhaps if they understood that it's their choice to do it, no-one needs them to, they can pack in and no-one would miss them, their attitude would be more acceptable on the road. 

Now see these edited versions by the Daily Telegraph, bleeping out the cyclists, showing them initiating confrontation by rebuke and in one case, even riding like a madman to do so. So Telegraph why do you encourage this? Are cyclists self appointed policemen now?

Monday, 1 June 2015

Cyclist rides into back of car.

The cyclist who was so intent on a gadget he was using, failed to notice a parked car some distance ahead and rode at speed into the back of it See the video  

He was very lucky. He could easily have broken his neck but was able to continue his journey.

But let's reverse the role. A driver fails to notice a stationary cyclist, and at the same speed, crashes into the cyclist killing or at least seriously injuring him. The driver would be looking at a potential 14 years in prison.

What are the common factors in both cases?

  • Both didn't intend it.

  • In both cases it was from a very dangerous scenario, where humans on two flimsy wheels are mingling with big machines.

  • In both cases, having exposed humans in the road wasn't crucial for society.

  • The biggest difference?......................14 years inside.