Carlton Reid & Anti Driver Brigade salivate over silly girl.

At last the anti Driver Brigade, led by such luminaries as the very anti driver cycling campaigner Carlton Reid, think they've found a real live genuine cycling hating killer in young Emma May who stupidly tweeted that she had knocked someone off their bike, adding 'she has right of way, they don't pay bloody road tax' and then 'Bloody Cyclists' 

Carlton Reid

We hold no mandate for such conduct or tweets but just let's look at the anti driver background to all this.
For some time a Twitter account styled Cycling Hatred has been posting supposedly genuine tweets from cycle haters containing anti cycling comment, abuse and threats. Of course Reid and his fellow travellers promote this as evidence of driver hatred toward cyclists on the basis that it must be drivers and if it is, the content is for real. Never mind that the evidence out on the road, no-one seems to be deliberately aiming at cyclists and murdering them either, is totally at odds with all this. But I can verify, and there is some of it on these pages, that hatred toward drivers is real, very dishonest and sly to the extent that yes The Cycle Lobby are very capable of inventing most of this bile for official consumption.

So back to Emma. Well she was tracked down immediately by the Spandex Taliban, her tweet forwarded to the local Plod, her company informed-she's now under investigation even though tweeting in a private capacity- her actions and picture went viral, and only after all that, did cyclists come forward and report an incident to police. Well of course that she was a blond was already in the public domain so yes the suspect was blond but how coincidental that her registration number wasn't in the public domain and so these cyclists didn't know it either nor the colour and make of car either seemingly! But she is already condemned world wide by driver haters and yet no-one has actually tied her to the alleged incident yet. Her twitter may have been as untrue as most of the other rants are.

Reid needs to understand the laws of libel since until charges & trial all this is still alleged and not proven.

Drivers we must make sure that Norwich Police are aware of all this and investigate fully and prove that this incident was real and if it were, that it was definitely Emma. If so, we have no sympathy for her but if this is another Pleb Gate style put up job then let's have the cyclists on the rack. One or the other please.

 

 

 

Twitter Trolls need not apply.

Want to discuss our tweets?

Here's the place.

What a superb medium Twitter is for any organisation to spread its messages and news. But it attracts every type of individual who think it is a message board, blog, or even like facebook. It isn't any of these. Nor is it intended to be a discussion forum. If it were, contributors wouldn't be confined to a mere 140 characters would they?

The simple fact is that it's not possible to do justice to a complex issue in 140 characters and it isn't wise to try to do that.

Twitter however does attract the trolls who's only aim is to taunt, ridicule, abuse and bully; usually hiding behind a pseudonym whilst telling blatant lies too.

The trolls love twitter because they can show off to all their pals whilst contributing nothing adult to any debate, wasting valuable time and in road safety matters, that can cost lives.

One of their strategies is to demand proof and evidence for any fact or conclusion which may reasonably be drawn from actual events. For example: The statement that the faster a cyclist rides the more severe their injury and less chance to avoid an accident  is not challenged by trolls, who will not admit it's correct either but instead they demand evidence of it.  Apart from avoiding a truth, this tactic is common and a diversion from a serious truth as it affects what should be advised whilst making the troll seem intelligent. So in this case avoiding that cyclists actions are a factor in their accidents. That is just one example of an easily recognised but dangerous tactic of trolls. 

The best place to debate any issue is on a blog. One of the disadvantages of Twitter is that a new follower has no idea what has already been answered at length; often repeatedly. Trolls don't like Blog because they don't get an audience unless they are sensible and behave and they find it impossible to do either. In other words only genuine queries need apply.

So this page is dedicated to genuine query and comment on all matters driving and road safety. Some will be published for all to see and some wont.

Why Drivers nearly don't miss cyclists

Drivers always look far forward up the road not at the near things they have already accounted for. It's simply too late to deal with hazards when they are already upon them.

Having seen the cyclist very early and having planned their pass, once alongside, the cyclist is now a past event and the attention is now further up the road and especially for opposing traffic. The objective, to pass the cyclist without striking them, has been achieved. However the cyclist is bound to feel unnerved and insecure if the pass is only a matter of inches. That doesn't automatically mean dangerous driving, it is how one feels when being passed by big heavy machines on the move. That is the brain simply telling you you're in danger and asking 'what am I doing here?'

Internal mail on Lincoln cycling gets published

The following letter was for internal consumption in answer to Lincolnshire Echo's stance on cycling. However they published it.

 

Hi Paul,

Re the Boris Bikes & the Echo comment.

For some time I have been aware that politicians, some with an anti driver ideology, others desperate to mitigate the economic mess we are in, have been encouraging cycling as if it can replicate 300,000,000,000 driver miles a year, in the minimum time and the transportation of large loads or or numerous people. Of course it is utter nonsense. It is also nonsense to promote cycling, not necessary for the survival of the community, as if on an equal basis and at the expense of 35 million drivers without whom , including private, the economy would collapse over-night and all of us would die very rapidly from lack of basics; including food, water, heat & medicine. Quite simply, drivers & walkers are entirely necessary for the survival of all and other road users simply aren’t. Think about that.

So in view of this I have been asking a simple question. Would we normally or under any other circumstances tolerate unprotected humans mixing, mingling and often competing with large pieces of heavy fast machines operated by people of various, mostly poor ability, unless it was extremely crucial that they should? It’s a fair question. Now please look at http://bit.ly/VNby9D & http://bit.ly/KEfqjh clearly cycling on roads is very dangerous. It is only healthy if not killed or turned into a paraplegic as people often are.

In promoting cycling, Is the Echo going to take responsibility for the next Lincolnshire cycle fatality? I certainly believe the politicians who have been exploiting cyclists for their own agenda should feel guilty when one dies or is seriously injured; don’t you?

Don’t let’s look at danger through rose coloured spectacles. We need to re-think what roads are for; it’s no longer 1920.

Wishes

Taxi driver kills for £35

Dear Sir, May I take issue with the adverse comments in response to the sentencing of a taxi driver after an horrific accident. (19/1) *** Whilst I have every sympathy for the bereaved relatives, bereavement's no qualification of road safety and sentencing. On the contrary road safety and sentencing cannot be based on raw emotion at all. As for BRAKE, apart from their declared green environmental policy against motor transport, what exactly is their qualification in road safety and sentencing? In their predictable and shrill demands for tougher sentencing of drivers, they ignore some perspective which, In fairness to your readers, needs some balance. ***  If it were not for drivers, the economy would collapse over-night and we would begin to die in large numbers from lack of basics like, food, water, heat, medicine, healthcare and so on. So drivers keep far more alive than they kill and are not the enemies of the State that anti drivers claim. In fact there is less death on the road, from all causes, after 300 billion driver miles a year than from accidents in the home. Are there such shrill calls for imprisonment for home owners then? Of course not! So clearly this concern for life is selective and against drivers. ****** Why should one driver have an accident where, for just bent metal, the police are not even concerned but from exactly the same scenario and actions, by virtue of the terrible coincidence that human flesh intervened, there are calls for heavy terms of imprisonment? Thank goodness the courts are beginning to understand this it seems. **** The fact remains that when society, from necessity, encourages humans to operate dangerous machinery with other humans intermingled accidents and bad things will happen. Can we really incarcerate people for doing their best but still making mistakes and getting it wrong? If that were so we would all be in jail for mistakes. Although convicted of careless driving, which is not based on fact but subjective opinion, unlike evidence of murder for example, this was still an unintentional accident in a scenario that society allows. *** Wishes

Edmund King: 'Genuine road safety is a cracked record.'

Edmund King, ( Mouthpiece of the AA) one time CEO of the RACFoundation who tend to be ideologically opposed to drivers and all things driving, has been busy promoting speed cameras, speeding fines and speed awareness courses even though AA depend on drivers for the largest part of their income.

Not one to miss an oportunity to jump on the latest populist bandwagon, Edmund has been promoting cycling -AA sell bike acessories too- of late. Not more than he promotes himself it has to be said.

An unashamed hero of a Twitter Account styled @CycleHatred, where the owners and followers accumulate as many examples of, what they believe are genuine expressions of hatred toward them from alleged drivers. Not one to allow peace to break out, Edmund weighed in with a talk about 'Two Tribes' supposedly to bring, in his words, 'harmony' between the two groups. However how such a public figure as Edmund thinks that such a topic doesn't actually foment problems is either because he is very stupid or very mischevous. Whether Edmund was silly enough to cite any of the examples furnished by @CycleHatred for his speach we do not know. But it had occurred to us that many of these could be bogus, some from the nastier cyclists themselves and in any case, given that there are 30 million drivers out there and there isn't actually any evidence that the threats are any more than a wind up because drivers simply are not aiming their vehicles at cyclists. All this shows that, anyone serious about road safety should pay no heed to Edmund and his Spandex Warriors of @CycleHatred. 

Edmund has also been attacking Admiral Insurance, for quite rightly, not making a premium allowance for speeding drivers who elect to use the dubiously legal and coercive option of Speed Awareness Courses.
But fails to mention that, in his support for speed cameras, he and AA, who run these courses, have a vested interest in them. So we challenged Edmund King on this and also warned that he has no expertise in road safety or driving either. We said: 'Speed awareness courses run for profit by private companies on the basis of poor science and wrongful ticketing' Edmunds response? 'Barking'. No denial there then!

'Can politicians learn that @AAPresident is no expert in road safety and driving and has vested interests'.  Edmund avoids the statement with: ' You are like a scratched record and a very boring one at that' So no denial to that either then. Apart from changing the subject with peurile remarks saying more about Edmund than he would like, how about the serious road safety matters that he isn't denying and seems to think is acceptable?

Edmund and the AA are an example of the big guns we are up against in our quest for genuine road safety instead of profit based road safety. By making us an adversary, he discloses that he is also adverse to genuine altruistic road safety and a supporter of the unnecessary prosecution of many thousands of perfectly safe drivers too.

War on drivers continues say Telegraph

In this story about speed camreras being rolled out again I am quoted, See it here But I felt that I ought to post the following comment on their forum: Unfortunately I have been misquoted in this probably because David doubted what I actually told him. So, to assist this debate, some clarification. I do explain this fully at Understanding Speed at www.youdrive.co But basically, to speed, that is simply to exceed any number on a pole, cannot physically result in anything, including an accident; any more than not to speed wont do so either. Speed accidents are always caused by driving too fast, mostly actually below the limits which is when most accidents happen. Even in the worst type, the head on multi casualty collision, it is often the case that neither driver was speeding. So what I actually told the Telegraph was that these cameras do not see one single accident cause. In fact they are about the prevention of thousands of imaginary accidents that weren’t about to happen by prosecuting thousands of perfectly safe drivers who weren’t about to have one anyway. The courses he mentions are run for profit by private companies who's tutors are not experts or specialists and who do not tell their victims that they are there because 1) The speed limit was probably incorrect. 2) The cameras cannot see accident causes & 3) Speeding cannot cause accidents. So apart from the students being coerced for profit with doubtful legality, these courses are entirely fraudulent too.