Uninsured drivers. Call for stiffer penalties.

Karl Mc Cartney MP

Edmund King

It seems that MP Karl MacCartney's call for stiffer penalties for uninsured drivers is gathering some momentum. I was invited to appear with him and Edmund King, President of the AA on BBC Midlands Politics Show for Saturday the 17th (or is it Sunday the 18th September?)


It is my belief that to knowingly and deliberately drive uninsured is far worse than being a natural and accidental poor driver.


You will all know that I am against the punishment of perfectly safe drivers and indeed am against imprisonment for driving full stop. No-one sets out to have an accident, unless they are suicidal that is and bad drivers are usually naturally bad; in fact most bad drivers think they are pretty good in my experience. So driving without insurance without any care or consideration for others, to my mind, is one of the very worst of driving offences. The idea that a young person can be maimed for life, needing constant care until they die, or that so much damage can be caused by someone who doesn't care a jot about compensation and reparation to their victims appalls me. That punishments have been so low makes matters even worse. The Motor Insurance Bureau pays out something but that then is added to all of our premiums so we all finish up paying more.


The mind set.
But it is the mind set of someone who is prepared to drive a chunk of heavy hardware among other humans without 3rd party cover that is the most worrying aspect for me. That sort of person will not worry about bald tyres, MOT, servicing, maintaining vehicles or worse, their manner of driving either. To be reckless in any part of driving means they will be reckless throughout. That mind set is one where, if there were a psychological element to the driving test, they would fail it. In other words they should never be allowed to drive on public roads ever. With that in mind, I told the viewers that on first conviction there should be a large fine and a lifetime, yes a lifetime driving ban. I believe this would deter most from doing it. For those stupid enough to do it again, a long jail sentence would  then be entirely appropriate.


Well look out for it on Saturday/Sunday.  


What do you think?

Letter that says it all about camera partnerships.

Flick to the letter page 1st letter (Page 27)  This answer is self explanatory

 I write as an ex cop and have dealt with the accidents, prosecuted them, supplied the stats and indeed held a class 1 police advanced driving qualification and police motor cyclist having served my time as a motor engineer first. I think my CV would entitle me to comment on matters of road safety.

I do not know the qualification however of your correspondent Katherine Barrett, of the Road Safety Partnership, in these matters but I take it, unlike me, she is salaried; whereas I offer my time and expertise to road safety without vested interest or any income from it.

Her response to Brian MacDowal of the ABD was astounding and in many respects highlights the failures of these people.

For a start she uses a term 'excessive speed' which is not an offence under the RTA 1991. What does she mean? If she means 'speeding' why use a four syllable term, which is not a legal state, for a two syllable one, 'speeding' which is? Why indeed do we allow officials to use non-legal terms to confuse the issue at all?

'Speeding' that is the act of exceeding an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole, set by non experts, cannot cause anything at all; any more than not to exceed it, will not cause anything. The fact is that most accidents are below the speed limits anyway.

Cameras, just like our Speedos but with a camera attached, cannot see accident causes, like too fast, drunk, careless, dangerous, making a phone call, lighting a cigarette at all just like our Speedo can't. They only see 'speeding' which, as I have explained, doesn't cause anything. If this were not bad enough, by going back to basics, who says the limits are correct and appropriate anyway? Who sets them? What is their expertise? Well I can assist with that too. I voluntarily go out and examine speed limit orders and am appalled at the lack of justification or reasons submitted and often they are simply at the behest and aspiration of some local councillor who is no expert either. And on this basis we are prosecuting thousand upon thousands of perfectly safe drivers? And all this is for profit. Not just to keep partnerships, like Katherine's, going but the camera firms, the maintenance people and the installers. If this is all about saving lives, then why should there be any profit or gain for anyone? I don't charge for my advice and work in this.

But her whole case is based on a common sixth form logic which is astounding in it's naivety. 'Make everything slower and the injuries will be less'. Oh really? Well on that logic, let's stop road transport totally and achieve road casualty Nirvana at a stroke! But then, apart from the trait, that she is worrying about impact effect after an accident rather than stopping the accidents from happening to start with, here is the big failing with the Road Safety Industry; their tunnel vision. 

The immediate effect of stopping road traffic would be an economic collapse and thousands dying very rapidly thereafter. So even slowing UK's traffic costs about £3 billion per annum for every 1 MPH, yes just 1 MPH too low annually. (About £30 billion a year). How many lives could we save with that kind of money in a better NHS, better emergency services, better A&E Katherine? In fact why, do we need 43 camera partnerships like hers up and down the land all spouting the same mantra? Let's disband some of those for a start.

Road Safety is not costless but we are never given the other side of the balance sheet are we? For all its piety, it is not altruistic and consumes £billions a year and it's easy to prove that most of that money stops not one single accident.  

The fact is that by focussing on the wrong causes, by profiteering, we are actually contributing to road death. By taking money from the economy, taking people's licences, their jobs, for no good reason, we contribute to hardship and economic death too.

Someone must start looking from outside the Road Safety Industry's box and exposing their self promoting tunnel vision that actually costs lives.

It seems that The ABD are doing it already but we must get more of the 30 million drivers to unite in that aim too.

Regards

Phone courses? More evidence that they are not serious about safety!

Greville Burgess. Photo By Lincs Echo.

I have been asked to comment about a new scheme to be run by the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership for a choice of a course or prosecution for phone use while driving. This is our considered response:

'I do see a difference from the 'speeding' courses and the phone courses.

Without a doubt using a phone whilst driving and indeed concentrating on business and other issues whilst driving is exceedingly dangerous,  does cause accidents and is deliberate. Whereas simply driving above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole does not cause anything, most who do it are driving perfectly safely, and are often exceeding the limits inadvertently because of the road layout itself.

So where on the one hand the courses are entirely fraudulent at least, with phone use, a course will be able to instruct truthfully and correctly.

Having said that, I ask what is the legal grounds in both cases to ignore a disclosed offence on payment of a course? Either an offence is disclosed or it is not. In my view there was little point in the justified raising of the phone call issue for a separate offence to be created then start wheeling and dealing with it if road safety and saving lives is the true objective.

This is just another example of the Road Safety Industry less interested in what actually kills providing they can sell courses.'  


(Published in full17/8/11 See story here Web version here.)

Regards

Keith Peat.

Stop War on Drivers E-Petition.

We have set up a Government E-Petition to Stop War on Drivers. If you don't think it's a 'war' then read this press release first:  Cameron's War on Drivers then sign the E-Petition here

Driffield 20 MPH idiocy from non experts.

Councillor Paul Rounding.

Broadcaster David Burns

I was invited to comment on David Burns' BBC Humberside Radio Show about the call for more 20 MPH zones in the Driffield area and listened to the rationale, being advanced by an ex mayor of Driffield, one councillor Paul Rounding. 


It is absolutely unbelievable how, as we keep observing, that, when it comes to any other dangerous activity, we defer to experts but when it comes to road safety, driving, prosecution and hampering of drivers, any Tom, Dick and Harry is given so much authority. This is such a case.


Basically the councillor's only rationale is that: 'We have got these 20 MPH's everywhere else so let's join them up'. Oh right; on that basis the whole world will be one joined up 20 MPH zone and then we will start on 15 MPH ones will we? He had no figures but relied on the simplistic sixth form logic: 'Make everything slower and all will be much nicer'. But it costs a fortune to slow road transport. About £3 billion pounds a year for every 1 MPH too slow. Surely, as a socialist, he would prefer to have that sort of money, about £30,billion a year in the NHS really saving lives or in social services? No he revealed his real dislike for drivers by talking of an aim to 'pick the motorist off' as he put it. Well Driffield, here is a politician who hasn't realised that all of his voters are drivers or depend on drivers when he is thinking of overslowing you and indeed wanting you prosecuted too.


Councillor: If you want to know why and how your policy will cause more accidents please do look at Dangerous 20s Kill Kids. When you have done that you will then have a much better idea of the subject. 

Another charity likes safe drivers prosecuted.

Yet another charity, CRIMESTOPPERS, supports the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers with a £1000 reward to help catch Speed Camera Arsonists. See: Linconshire Echo story 

Whilst we do not support any crime or condone arson, which is one of the most serious of crimes, we have to ask why yet another charity, CRIMESTOPPERS, is keen to use our money to support the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers with their £1000 reward for speed camera arsonists?

Surely we, who pay for these charities, would rather our money were spent on other types of criminal activity and are not overly concerned about speed cameras. After all, the speed camera suppliers at £40,000 a piece and those that maintain them, as well as the well remunerated chaps in the Road Safety Partnership, should be able to stump up £1000 between them if they are that concerned. Why do we need a charity to do it?


Here's our response:

Echo 26th July 11

Stop this crazy Bill

Karl Turner MP. 

Read another ex police officer's view of emotion and the law. 

Seven years jail for some-one's inexpert and angry idea of you?

Karl Turner, who has only been an MP for Hull since 2010 replacing John Prescott, has already managed to get his name in lights with a Bill to imprison drivers for seven years on the mere perceptions of inexpert and hostile witnesses. 

His Bill, which is for 2nd reading on the 9th September 2010,

Says:17 May 2011 : Column 192

Dangerous Driving (Maximum Sentence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

5.39 pm

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for a conviction of dangerous driving from two years to seven years; and for connected purposes. 

Note: Dangerous' previously Reckless Sec2 RTA 1988. Reckless has been replaced in 1991 by dangerous. It is certain that, unlike reckless, lots of drivers can be dangerous without any effort at all and are simply poor drivers; whereas reckless did at least imply some deliberation. 

In his address to Parliament, and elsewhere, he continually cites serious injury cases for emotion but no politician should use the, knee jerk, scare tactics of the sisters of BRAKE when seeking to destroy lives and families and have people locked up for long periods. 

Complaints have already been submitted to the Speaker and other MPs about Mr Turner's tactic. His Bill doesn't require injury at all or even an accident to qualify. Just the mere perception of others, no matter what their expertise, is enough to make a case of Sec 2.

We are appalled about this and urge all drivers to write to their MPs to warn them of this very dangerous Bill.

In the meantime does this MP think that UKs 30 Million drivers just do it for fun? That they are the enemies of the State?

Do read more of this MP at: MP blows his top & Karl Turner wants you jailed

We are totally as one with the other driver groups.

Write to your MP,s. Warn them of his tactic and that the Bill requires no accidents just impression of dangerous. It's very easy. Use Write to Them and it's all done for you. Write to your MP here.