A copper's rebuke.

To an 'anonymous' Village Beat Officer's tweet about how he and his community had engaged in stops and warned or spoke to 76 drivers about speed, seat belts etc. I had tweeted my comments. Bear in mind that, with only 140 characters to make a point on Twitter, comments have to be to the point.

At least this PC did, in due course, long after I knew what he was referring to, complain about my comments on Twitter. Asking him to be specific this is the following exchange. 

Keith,

Your views that you tweeted as follows……

(1) “So while you 'reminded' 76 #drivers what they already knew, real crime was happening”

(2) Except '#speeding' causes no accidents, death from accidents in the home is higher & we prefer you did something else!

I would invite you to do the hardest part of my job (informing a loved one of a death) and then ask yourself to really consider what you tweeted.  Policing involves the whole scope of unlawful activities not just the one’s that you see on an action packed TV series.  Might also be worth considering the quantity of deaths on our roads Vs “death in the home”.

When I became a police officer I affirmed, and one of those tasks was to:-

·      Preserve life and property (very applicable to my actions that I tweeted)

I welcome your views but maybe the context of them could be very sensitive to a section of people who have experienced life tragedies on our roads.

Take care, regards

Rob.................

Hi Robert,

I was a police officer for 32 years. See my profile.

Before I took out any prosecution I ensured for myself it was just and warranted. If there was something wrong about the set up, I saw it as my duty to question it. I was not just a factotum. I was the sheriff of my patch.

I invite you to read facts about 'why speeding happens' 'why coppers shouldn't trust speed limits' and other items under Road Safety, Speed Limits. Perhaps 'Coppers use Cameras but don't know why' on my site at www.youdrive.org.uk  and then ask how much you know about the limit in which you use your camera? Then ask if you didn't know these things, why encourage non-police not to understand them too but point cameras at people instead? So what do you actually know about this particular speed limit? Who set it? What was his/ her driving qualification? Do they know more about driving than police? How many accidents were happening before it was set? How many members of the public, those who use the road, supported or asked for it? And so on. As a copper, about to apply the law, these should be considered.

My issue is that there are glaring causes of accidents that, for their own reasons, the DfT and police refuse to address or acknowledge. One is the cause of the worst type of crash there is, the over take head on. There are others,also self evident, that I have drawn to their attention too. So yes I have every reason to be annoyed about the selective activity in which you wish to raise the emotive scenario of the deceased victims as justification. 

I have identified far too much profit from the pious & vested interest of the very profitable Road Safety Industry; money which could really save lives elsewhere, to fall for pious emotionalism in it. There should be no emotionalism employed when making or when applying any law.

It is bad enough when non-expert police officers engage in this type of activity, but to indulge the local and parochial inexperts of the community to satisfy their local aspirations and perceptions is not what coppering is about; that is what local parochial councillors do to secure a few hundred votes for themselves. You don't need such votes Robert. 

I would suggest all police and Highways Officials read JJ Leeming's Road Accidents: prevent or punish? before employing their speed cameras.

So please do read through both my sites and see what more you can be doing to assist the driver and reduce road accidents as well as, at the same time, saving billions of pounds a year which could be better spent in saving far more lives in the NHS, the Emergency Services, A & E and so on. 

There are other things you personally could do, as a local resident, to ensure speed limits are appropriate and justified properly and have your say in the setting of them. If you did that, I can assure you, you would be appalled at the paucity of the reasons given. Very often, no more than at the behest of some local parochial councillor who possibly doesn't even drive. Surely police officers shouldn't be pointing cameras on that basis should they? 

Perhaps you may wish to forward this to your C.C.

But I am glad you wrote to me.

Regards

Keith Peat.
Drive East Midlands
www.driveeastmidlands.com
Drivers' Protest Union.

Jenny Walton The Humber Toll heroin

Jenny Walton. HAAT

At a time when The Valleys have just demonstrated, yet again, the stoicism and strength of the Welsh, one of their daughters, the indomitable Jenny Walton of H.A.A.T (Humber Action Against Tolls), faces a massive set-back after years of solid campaigning for the Humber Region's people. 

Having enticed, pleaded and cajoled all unitary bodies, politicians and businesses  to be united in their approach to Government for lower or even no Bridge tolls, she and they, have been effectively slapped in the face by first an unsympathetic public inquiry and now the Government's ready acquiescence to its findings. The story of despair is here  

Let's be clear. This is a Government that promised to 'end the war on the motorist'. So far, as our followers know, they are not keeping to that promise. 

We know Jenny Walton would not expect any favours for who and what she is. Only those of us privileged to know her can verify how hard the campaigning is for her and that it carries her own personal road tolls.

We know it is tough Jenny but it's what keeps you going. Don't give up. Just know this: all drivers agree with you.

Stop the war on the motorist E Petition. Sign here.

E Petition: Lifetime ban for knowingly driving uninsured then Jail for 2nd offence

We have now submitted this E petition along the lines of our BBC Statement.

People who knowingly drive uninsured are highly dangerous. If there were a psychology test for drivers, they would display the wrong mindset for driving. Irresponsible, a lack of care and consideration for the welfare of others and a willingness to break the law. So they are unfit to drive vehicles at all.

These people show that they will not care about the condition and safety of their vehicle, tyres, brakes and worse their manner of driving too.

In view of the foregoing, they should, on first conviction, be fined with a lifetime driving ban. A repeat offence would carry a long prison term.    Support the petition at: The uninsured e-petition is here.

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