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, 19 October 2016

In a revolution the 'Old Guard' are usually first to go.

I have already made the point that Brexit was a vary rare event. A society, having been ruled and governed for many years by undemocratic elitists who have managed to ignore its central most important core, simply because they represent the majority, (  See how they did that here. ), by a dreadful mistake, allowed the ordinary people to make an important decision on UK's freedom and future and the result was a revolution against them. 

Poor David Cameron
 was given the chance to restore their Status Quo, but despite all the stunts, lies, terror factors, manipulation of events, he failed them and has now paid the price. 

Now the Elite are trying every trick to get the serfs back into their compounds. See the evidence here. 

There is currently a case against us, no expense spared, going through the High Courts to put all the power back into the hands of the Ruling Elite, including the ruling MPs, who hate democracy. 

Brexit was a peaceful and legal revolution, set up by the Whole Parliament
 on behalf of The Nation and the question was unequivocal and very clear. See that explained here. A legal challenge to it should not be allowed or tolerated. And yet here we are, with three Judges currently listening to a fallacious and subversive claim against our Leaders to prevent them complying with the instructions of the Nation with all the solemnity and seriousness that our bewigged elite can muster. Why? 

Well because this revolution was peaceful, the Elite, in all its forms, are being allowed to continue their subversive conduct as I have pointed out here. 

But in the French Revolution, all the Elite ruling class, their supporters and their judges were marched off to Madam Guillotine to prevent just such seditious conduct.  

Of course our unelected High Court judges
 cannot claim to be of the people; they're appointees of the Ruling Elite. Judges, acting for the people, wouldn't even allow this case against them to be heard at all, let alone give it traction as they are now doing.
Lord Thomas. Lord Chief Justics
 In effect, the People's Revolution has been handed to the very people it was against in the first place.  

Note:   'Thomas is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration.'  

Should Thomas' European interests exclude him from any part of this decision?

So when the Elite have been allowed to overturn democracy, what next? A proper people's revolution? Civil War? If minority single issue lobbies are allowed, unmolested, to take to the streets with their banners and loud mouths, and change our country to one we don't want too, (See here) what option would be left to over 17 million people? 

It is definitely long over due that The Queen
should now show why we keep her and her family in grandeur. She failed us with Devolution, See here. Does she really want a civil war and a real revolution this time?   Both she and Theresa May
 must protect democracy and the people. They would be given overwhelming support to do so.

Monday, 17 October 2016

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

Although they sound very important and official, PACTs is nothing more than another self appointed tax relief quango and profitable roads safety charity that Parliament
 takes very seriously for some reason, even though they are really a lobby group for all sorts of road safety profiteers. Get  some idea of what we mean here And here you can see more of the bogus road safety profiteer vested interests too.

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

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

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

PACTS are very much the UK leaders in all this. 

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

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

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

Here is some more on PACTS.

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

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

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

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Illegality of challenging Brexit. The Courts must support the people & Parliament.

I am no lawyer but I can read law. In fact as a copper that's exactly what I had to do and apply it too. Because bad losers, vested interests (See more on them here) and anti Brits are trying every stunt to overturn Brexit, including via the courts, it's perfectly natural for me to look at their case and what they are challenging.

 Parliamentarians who claim they have supremacy over the people they represent are wrong for that very reason. 

It is now technically viable for the whole nation to vote on every issue, the ultimate democracy, and that there is now, technically, no longer any need for a Parliament at all. 

All Parliament provides, at the moment, is a system which, very vaguely and generally, represents the views of the people via their local representatives who are selected locally for their general views as most likely to suitably represent their constituents and from then on, expressing their preferences to persuade the largest number from their community to elect them on that basis. This is very crude, and because it's impossible for their manifestos to cover every issue, much of which is not even envisaged at election, we only have a vague idea of how our MP will interpret what we want. That there is a five year tenure based on this makes it even worse but it is the best we have for now.  

The whole nation voting is the supreme Parliament and if it were technically viable, any such vote is obviously supreme over a mere 650 MPs who are only there because, so far, there is no way we can have a national vote on all policy. However, on the very rare occasion when Parliament does ask the people via a controlled and constitutionally run Referendum, the people are The Supreme Parliament.  It's absolute nonsense for Parliament to set up a National Referendum, at great cost and time, set out the terms and then after all that, demand the right to reverse it or overrule it depending on the result. Any MP who imagines that is either too silly to be in Parliament or too undemocratic to be there in the first place. 

But notwithstanding the supremacy of The People, the legal situation, in my view, is also very simple. 

The only thing that can be challenged via the courts is The Referendum Act 2015. See it in all its simplicity here. 

It's not valid to challenge The Prime Minister or the Government for invoking Parliament's wishes. After several readings, in both Houses, the Act was passed by Parliament and received Royal Assent. Surely the time to challenge this was at the time of the Bill and before the Referendum was set up and the campaign was run? If our Courts are to be just, the case should be stopped immediately in the public interest and not even tolerated on the basis that the challenge should actually be against Parliament instead of the Government without appeal.  

The next part, also against the PM and Government, (their right to invoke Article 50, without any further consent), is also not of their making. See how A 50 works. 

A State, having decided to leave -and we have- in its own time and when ready, simply submits and invokes A50. It matters not who is in Government or in Number 10, the incumbent must do it and to the best advantage of The Nation. No-one in Parliament has the right to obstruct or deter that process against their own Parliament's Act. 

Of course, as all dissident, self interested, groups always do, invent an unreal 'Two Tribes' scenario, in this case, 'Hard' and 'Soft' Brexit is already upon us to confuse and blur a simple process, and we mustn't fall for that like we have always done in the past. See how the stunt has run and ruined our country already.  No. There is only the Brexit we voted for; our complete withdrawal from the EU.

Does all this make sense to you? Well if so, make sure that our Judges see it that way too or there's something wrong. 

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Broadcasters should either support the Nation , shut up, or be closed down.

Brexit, in effect, was a revolution against the Status Quo; a coup. 

Normally, in such situations, the first places the new regime head for, for obvious reasons, are the TV and Radio stations.

Throughout the Referendum Campaign there was no question about the hostility of Sky and BBC against Brexit 

and they certainly played a major part in promoting the anti Brexit scare tactics, and lies and also in blowing up a subjective attack on Nigel Farage et al too. 

They refused to kill the scare tactic of telling the Nation that Brexit means instant Brexit, which certainly scared many people from voting for it. Look here how I pointed out to them, from 25th May, that this was untrue yet they still allowed it to scare people

But their conduct since the vote has been nothing short of sedition and treachery against the British Nation and caused me to point out here, that Lord Haw did less to divide and unsettle the nation to be hanged for it. By the 25th June, the anti British anti democracy media activity was enough for me to say that The Queen should be lending a hand. In this blog I wrote:  To The Queen, 'They are aided by like minded media. Media who should now be ignoring the nasty, bitter bad losers and helping us to move forward in unison and peace. In fact, 'unlike our wartime media, they are actually still favouring anti British anti democratic pro EU propaganda, fostering division and unrest among your people.'

Yet here we are and these media companies are still being allowed unfettered access to The Queen's people and so they are even bolder in their misinformation.

Here is Sky with what can only be described as a piece of blatant and subjective propaganda, promoting the latest invention, 'Soft Brexit' to confuse and divide our nation.

See here how the invented 'Two Tribes' stunt has been employed to change our nation against the majority and against our best interests in the past.  And here it is being used by Sky. 

There can be no  suggestion of balance in this. One doesn't need a degree in auto suggestion to see how blatantly anti Brexit this is.   Most people love a dippy egg with soldiers to dip in them all invitingly laid around a breakfast plate while most see hard boiled eggs as a failure. But the hard version only contains negativity with the word 'No' at every point too. 

It's bad enough when Media are promoting anti Brexit comment against the Nation anyway, but to produce anti national propaganda without censure or control is just not tenable. 

Look up the word 'sedition' and deny that daily media content has not been less.


  1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
  2. any actionespecially in speech or writingpromoting such discontent orrebellion.
  3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

If this Nation can stand up against the EU, Sky and the BBC should cause us no problems at all. 

The Queen and her Prime Minister
should tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they should either support and promote the will of the people or keep out of the Brexit debate altogether. But in fairness to her people, it's long overdue that the Queen must step in on what is an important constitutional moment in our history and to insist on Media loyalty and patriotism.  

Sunday, 2 October 2016

Hard? Soft? Left? Right? Catholic? Protestant? Cyclist? Driver?

Well blow me down. No sooner had I told you all about the trick of inventing an irrelevant second option to create a 'them and us' 'two tribes' scenario to confuse the public and politicians on any given subject, now we're faced with 'Hard and soft' Brexit. See how the trick has already worked to reduce our nation to minority policy here.

There is no Hard or Soft Brexit. There is only Brexit where we have given our Prime Minister and our Parliament immense power- I did query here what true Brit MP could possibly object?-  

Yet here we are. Again a 'two tribes' scenario has been invented to muddy the waters and to give away all of the advantages and power that the UK has created for itself, to get exactly what we want. Why when we are in the Driving Seat? 

One bitter Remain Conservative, Alistair Burt MP,
Alistair Burt MP
 has just been entertained by Sky  -more interested in its USA friends and its free access to EU than for the UK it seems- and allowed Burt to speak utter hogwash to the nation about Brexit. 

He seems to think that firms like Nissan, with their vested interests are more important than the future and freedom of the UK. Neither he nor Sky point out that it's the EU that are insisting on open borders if we are to stay in EU's Single Market. It's the EU that's causing the problems with that, not us. 

Why do we need open borders and EU rules and governance to be able to trade with the EU any more than the USA, Canada, Australia, India, China and so on do? We simply don't. That's what gives us the upper hand in all this. So they charge us tariffs, then we charge them tariffs back. As we import more of their stuff than they ours, they will be the losers and we the winners. It can only be UK haters that abhor our strong position in this.  

People like Burt want us to show our hand prematurely to the opposition too. 'All these firms need to know ASAP' he says. Well next March isn't too long in the context of the re-birth of a nation is it? And from then the firms will have two years to decide their policy. But so far they have been bluffing. I challenge Nissan and Jaguar to move out now or just shut up and wait.

Then, like Tim Farron,
 leader of the Lib Dems, who clearly despises democracy, Burt has convinced himself that Theresa May must bring Brexit back to some Parliamentary vote. On what basis? That's not what they decided or included in the Referendum Act 2015. nor was it ever mentioned during the four month campaign either. 

In fact part of Cameron's fear tactic was, 'Let's not be under any misapprehension. Brexit means Brexit'. He even told us that if we voted for Brexit, Article 50 would be instigated immediately. Had it not been for those remarks, a lot more than 52% would've been happy to vote to leave the EU too.  So no. Article 50 must be submitted by a head of State and that's all. The people have told all MPs, of all parties, that is what must happen and to the best advantage of the UK too. Any MP who cannot take that should stand down. I wrote this on the 22nd June before the vote   Farron, Burt, and other like minded MPs need to show us that they accept its principles or be charged with being anti democratic and anti UK and stand down as parliamentary frauds. 

Theresa May must be resolute and not allow bogus arguments to blur the objective of the people. In fact she should be very tough with her own MPs who attempt to do so too. Brexit was clear and unequivocal.  

However, no matter whatever the issue, let's never allow this invented 'Two Tribes' modus operandi run our nation any more. 

When we compromise between right and wrong, minority lobbies and the real people, the outcome will never be the right outcome. Here are some examples of our country being run for irrelevant tribes on a compromise between right and wrong.

See how UK has changed. Is this how you like it?

And here's Sky using the newly invented 'Soft Brexit' in a blatant piece of auto suggestion propaganda 

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Left & Right Wing. Who needs them?

Left Wing? Right Wing? A very ancient and old trick that has always worked for irrelevant and angry minorities and most of us fall for it.

It's really simple. Get your minority single issue group, whether right or wrong, to be considered equally as important as what really is valid and important, then every issue can be debated on the incorrect premise of two equal sides. 

For example: Look how much was achieved, by corralling a number of different Christian groups under the obsolete and irrelevant word 'Protestant'. The reality is that the last Protestant died some 500 years ago and of course whereas, Catholicism is a distinct religious faith, Protestantism is merely a Catholic word for all the others who are not Catholic. Thus was created the impression of two tribes, when in reality it was one tribe continually at variance with every one else. It works very well. Basically it elevates a single issue minority to the level of the majority. 

Probably the best and current example of this is the very powerful single issue minority Cycling Lobby and their contrived road war with UK's 35 million drivers. and their 'Two tribes'. On this occasion, here is AA's Edmund King employing the 'Us and them barrier'.
 King cited inflammatory twitter account He loves to foment a fictitious cycle war with this. Here he used it before the Transport Select Committee and they fell for it.

The reality is that whereas all 65 million of us depend on all drivers- society only needs walkers and drivers- cyclists are just a loud unneeded minority. By this ruse - of two tribes-, they have made themselves to appear as big and essential to the community as drivers are. So far that has worked too. 

So clearly it is a common and successful ruse for any lobby to act as if they are a crucial and creditable part of two sides and strangely, we all seem to fall for it.  

Now we have 'Hard or 'Soft' Brexit. They're at it again. See it here.

So what is Left Wing & Right Wing? Who get's to decide who is who? Surely reality isn't about Left & Right but just right & wrong isn't it? Don't we want our lives and society run on the basis of the best policy on any individual issue as opposed to an ideology? 

Like the non Catholics allowed themselves to be labeled with the Catholic word 'Protestant' (Proddy Dog) to their disadvantage, why do we readily accept the Left Wing description of those who disagree with them as being Right Wing? I am not Right Wing at all. 

The reality is that all Left Wingers are not individual original thinkers. They work to a mantra and are totally predictable on any issue. Climate Change, Fracking, animal testing, Nuclear Power, Motor Transport, cycling, nationality, migration, wind power, renewables, defence, drivers, Calais, and so on.

They are incapable of any original thought because all of them, at any age, are stuck in their sixth form adolescence whereas the majority of us grow out of it. 

Often claiming the moral high ground and supported by Church leaders, who seem to think that God expects us all to be mugs to be Christian. 

One of the tricks is to stage demo's, very often where a tiny amount of people can loudly cause maximum disruption, that appears to be representative of far more people than it really is. 

Yes Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square full of people looks a lot when in fact it's only about 0.007% of the Nation.

Media are the worst for promoting minority groups and allowing them as much air time, very often, dependent on the ideology of the presenters and producers, even more time than the majority view. in studio and phone in programs.
Of course zealots of any calling will turn out loudly in overwhelming numbers to state their case, albeit a totally unrepresentative one given the chance, and on the basis of 'two sides' and 'balance' will be handed a totally unrepresentative proportion of public access to jeer, cheer, boo, scream and cajole as is their preference. This isn't balance nor is it democracy either.    

Another common tactic by Left Wing, Green and single issue minority groups, is to invent nasty names and labels when they cannot make a rational case. 'Racist, fascist, sexist, denier' and so on. As a result, we have been running the UK on the basis of not being called silly names. See here. 
Remove silly names from their armory and the Left Wing amount to very little.

There is no opposite to Left Wing, simply because the rest can be infinitely variable and unpredictable on any given issue. Intelligent thinkers are simply not predictable.  So let's kill off this dangerous and unneeded 'Two Tribes' and settle for what's right and wrong. What the majority believe, issue by issue.  And to do that, we must listen to these people most too.

Thursday, 22 September 2016

How cyclists put their lives in the hands of strangers.

Just study this video. Narrow road and a cyclist, aware of a truck right behind him, is pumping like mad to keep ahead of the lorry.

There would have been plenty of opportunity for the cyclist to have pulled on to a drive, to get out of its way, as I often did without a thought and in consideration of others, but this type of cyclist doesn't think like that.

What this shows is that cyclists, in a belief in their rights, are prepared to put their lives in the hands of complete strangers in massive machines, with completely diverse mentality and skill, who may be unwell, tired, stressed or distracted, in a way that no right thinking human would normally do.

Of course this activity kills and maims cyclists. 

See what it did to Richard Branson.

How can any politician, police or alleged road safety group encourage road cycling like this unless they are anti driver ideologists or cycling profiteers? 

But this selfish madness would've obstructed this truck driver and his essential load several times a day; and thousands like him too several times a day. So not only are these unneeded human hazards a massive liability for drivers, they are costing our economy millions of pounds too.

Why is this being allowed at all? Society doesn't need cyclists on roads any more than it doesn't need them on railway tracks either. 

Road users must be confined to who we need now and not who wants to be on them anymore. Surely that is basic sense. 

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

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

                 Magnificent Seven

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

What do these seven women have in common?

Add caption
Liz Truss Minister of Justice Lord Chancellor
Amber Rudd Home Sec.
Sara Thornton Chair NPCC
Theresa May. PM Ex Home Sec

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

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

Theresa May, now PM but prior to that was Home Secretary in charge of police. See this about her days as Home Secretary here, 
Where single issue anti driver lobby groups thrived and together with Suzette Davenport and Sara Thornton (Head of policing), police have been encouraged to promote single issue minority lobbies at the expense of the majority. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this one.

And this one too.

Theresa must man up. More SPAM in Government please. 

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Your camera,, your computer, your freedom, and police rights.

What right do police have to interrogate a piece of kit, on a fishing exercise after an accident, that you didn't ask for, has been installed in your car for Air Bag operation, belongs to you and paid for by you?  

Event Data Recorder
Well of course police would have no authority to examine anything you own after an accident would they. So here's one good reason why police no longer acknowledge road accidents and treat them all as crime. In effect your car is now a crime scene. See more on the cancellation of accidents here. 

 'But the most obvious reason that the word 'accident' has been ditched is that police can look for a culprit from the word go. In fact, the routine arrest of drivers after an accident before anything has been established is all part of this.'

Let's make a distinction between examining a piece of personal kit, like a phone or a laptop that is actually pertinent to or the cause of a suspected crime, such as texting whilst driving or grooming kiddies etc which you have employed and used, as opposed to a data recorder that you own and has not caused or is suspected of causing the accident and that you haven't used. If tyres or brakes could've caused the accident, then yes by all means police are right to investigate them for negligence or for a fault but EDRs do not cause accidents and are just part of an air bag system. 

'In The USA the information stored in EDRs is useful for the composite data it generates about air bag use and effectiveness. It is also useful in individual instances because it provides information about a vehicle’s use and condition in the moments before an accident. This clip of information can prove crucially important. It has already been used in multiple cases to prosecute drivers who were driving at reckless speeds before fatal collisions.. Despite many drivers’ insistence that while driving they did not exceed reasonable speeds, EDR data often indicated otherwise, and has been admitted against many drivers at trial to secure felony convictions for reckless driving.'

'A 55-year-old man was prosecuted at Oxford Crown Court for causing death by dangerous driving when his Chrysler 300 ploughed into the back of a queue of traffic on the M40.
The 70mph impact killed a passenger in the vehicle in front of him.
American car manufacturers must make airbag systems that can be investigated to assess speed, deceleration and braking in the event of a crash.
Read was asked by Thames Valley Police to assess the data, which revealed the driver had only started to brake 0.5 seconds before impact.
“The data was crucial in successfully prosecuting the driver' 

I do not support any form of dangerous driving or any driver offences but justice is far more important than any driving issues. Convictions cannot be based on the accused incriminating themselves without consent.

Why; just look at the formal police caution that explains to you your right not to incriminate yourself verbally and that is for statutory crime, not merely because police are making accidents a crime just because there's been an accident. 

The prosecution cannot even compel a spouse to betray their partner to provide evidence against them in a road case. So to be able to go fishing in a system whereby the defendant is effectively providing police with evidence against himself is clearly wrong. 

Tell police they do not have your consent to use your kit against you and if they ignore you, make sure you tell your solicitor so it's challenged at any hearing. Why not? 

More on EDR here.

What about Dash Cams?
Well again, for all the very same reasons, it didn't play any part or was relevant to any accident. Do not allow police to examine it until you have down loaded the pictures yourself and ensured they support you and don't incriminate you. It's your kit for your protection. Like all defendants, it's for the prosecution to make their case and not for you to make it for them.

Finally, it's the habit for police, when they stop drivers who they suspect of an offence, to ask them to sit in the rear of their car. They then lock them in. This is for police security where often a lone officer can be quite vulnerable. If they then decide to arrest you or you become animated, they then merely send for assistance as you're already in custody. 

Always politely decline to get into any police car. It really doesn't look good if the neighbours are watching. Why not invite the officer to sit in your car instead; especially if in inclement weather? You do have the choice and who wants to be locked into a police car anyway? It's very intimidating you know.

Make the Anti Driver Taliban prove their own cases without your help.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

For the idiots who think they can live without cars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See anti driver pro cyclist police cheating against drivers.

See evidence of pro-cyclist police ideology.