ACPO Ltd. The King is dead. Long live the KIng.

I must confess that I didn't notice or know of the passing of ACPO Ltd. It's been replaced by a group called The National Police Chief's Council. (NPCC). Read more of them here.

ACPO Ltd had too many vested interests and company off shoots for our liking. One of its babies was driver awareness courses and the feeding for profit of firms to make money from 'speeding'.

We have still not been able to discover the legal device where due legal process can be avoided by handing over money to profiteers, or how such a scheme is designed or interested in curtailing or cutting off its income by stopping offending. A complete contradiction in concept and objective. In fact, on the contrary, its a scheme budgeted on the basis that offending continues and worse, to encourage invented prosecutions too. It's a concept that screams out for a perceived and possible corruption. Here are two examples of the false stats and statements used to support it. Here  

Then there is RSS Ltd. an anti justice concept for profit if ever there was one. See ACPO's little helpers

Was the silent passing and the closing of ACPO and the standing down of Sir Hugh Ord a sign that it was one of disgrace? I would've expected a massive fanfare. How on earth did I miss it? Did you? Where was all the celebration of its life? Why did it go so quietly?

It would be nice to think that people in high places have been worried about ACPO's activities and the kind of charges that I have been making too.

Suffice to say that the new NPCC isn't a Ltd Company or a charity so that's a good start. It doesn't seem to be involved in spurious outside activity either. 

I have written to them on behalf of DU. 

We are a road safety group whose policy is based on ex traffic patrol officers.

We know that our society was created and expanded on fast, load bearing long distance road transport, the successors of which are today's motor transport. It doesn't seem to be appreciated that, central to this, is the private motorist. From air to rail travel all dependent on the motor car, to essential workers whether in road haulage, train driving, water supply, emergency services and health workers. In fact there are only two classes of road user society depends on and that is walkers and drivers.

In view of that, it is counter productive to hamper, delay and unnecessarily prosecute UK's drivers. 

It should be self evident that best road safety policy will not come from any profit or ideologically based motive. We know that by taking out both of these motives will not just more efficiently attack the causes of road accidents but will bring great relief to UK's hard pressed drivers too. 

Our aim is to achieve the best road safety without the unnecessary prosecution of UK's drivers. Who can disagree with that?

Our studies show that road safety, and the Highway Code, developed piecemeal for over a century, are now hopelessly out of date and in many cases, plainly flawed. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that far too many people, with no CV whatsoever in that life and death issue, are having far too much say in road safety policy.

I am very pleased that ACPO Ltd, with it's offshoot profit based prosecution firms, has now been disbanded. 

I hope that we can look to your association for support in our aims.

Wishes

So let's see if NPCC are going to be true road safety promoters. 

The Fatal 4 except there's only three

Wouldn't you think that the originators of the famous Fatal Four would know that one of them simply causes nothing at all.

It may well be why the canny coppers have left driving, road safety and accidents causes, all their remit, to er... The Fire & Rescue boys. See the originators The coppers know full well that 'speeding' causes nothing and that the law is framed to acknowledge it too.

Well I have emailed the F4 Group as follows: Hi, 

We are independent ex police road safety experts. I see Dave Webb is a a fire & rescue person and no doubt has attended many accidents in that capacity but I am surprised that he is being used to make driving and crash cause statements which falls within the remit of specialist police officers. .

Can anyone, preferably Dave, explain the mechanics as to how, by simply exceeding an arbitrary and unscientific number of a pole, 'speeding' can cause anything to happen? 

Dave Webb

The police know that it's driving too fast at any speed, even below the limits, that causes a lot of accidents and that is an element of dangerous driving. Since dangerous driving happens at any speed, then it follows that 'speeding' isn't part of it. We explain it Here.  In a nutshell, if a person crashes and kills someone by going too fast, there is no such charge or offence of causing a death by speeding is there?

I have raised this with the police many times and can be forgiven for assuming that 'speeding' remains in the F4 for one reason only. To promote the massive profitable Speeding Industry in the public eye. But whatever the reason, it's really not about road safety or saving lives simply because it isn't an accident cause at all.

Dangerous driving and careless driving are certainly fatal accident causes yet they are not in the F4. Isn't that suspicious? Why not remove 'speeding' and replace it with those if the cause is a genuine one and not to support profiteering? 

This is a serious enquiry and a genuine wish to promote genuine road safety. 

Wishes 

Police pretending that to simply exceed an arbitrary number on a pole can cause something again. Why? #Fatal4 https://t.co/mNlmhFLRfZ

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) October 8, 2015

2014 - More fatalities on #Lincs roads in last 4 months than first 8 #Fatal4 causes & disprop number of m/cyclists pic.twitter.com/ldc2bWbfrb

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) October 8, 2015

Should the police tell the truth about speeding? Take our poll here

Police bamboozle media on speed awareness.

In this Nottingham Post article see How the police bamboozle media on speed awareness.

To assume that drivers would prefer the courses is based on whether their ticket was justified in the first place. Our studies show that, because the system and business of courses has been set up, including paid staff, it is counter to stopping the offending and an incentive to allow offending to persist. The system now depends on speeding and not stopping it. Our research proves unequivocally that is exactly what is happening. 

If drivers had been asked: 'Would you prefer a £100 speed awareness course and time off work or nothing at all because the ticket wasn't justified?' They would choose nothing at all.

So there, unless the correct question is asked, is an example of a false premise survey isn't it? 'Accept the first part of the equation without question so the next part is a no brainer!' But what if the premise of the question is not so certain? What if the system is ignoring evidence of a faulty limit or a road layout issue causing drivers to increase speed that can be corrected? 

But the next sleight of hand is a version of the regression to the mean. The very same trick used to prove that speed cameras work. This time to tell us that '80% of those who take the courses do not get caught again within three years.'  Note: 'do not get caught' so that doesn't mean that the speeding has been stopped at all then. But it's even worse. How many people are ever caught once, never mind twice within three years? So here we have a classic of simple regression to the mean then. We all consider it bad luck to be caught once never mind again within three years so this 80% is a 'statement of the bleeding obvious' as John Cleese would say and no doubt blame it on the Ministry of Funny Facts too.

But then when we are unable to find any legal device that allows the judicial process to be stopped on a coercive offer to pay money to avoid due process, something we jail bent coppers for actually, then the cooked up surveys and stats look even more shady than just an unfortunate error. 

That they come from a senior policeman should worry us all. 

Yes the Speeding Industry Thrives

The system now depends on speeding and not stopping it.

Convictions for speeding up by half in 5 years says this story. See it here. On average 55000 for each force in 2014

500,000 just on motorways. 

Those attending the coercive speed courses of dubious legality and truth has risen by a massive 91% in 4 years. 

Oh and the police say ' the fees are sufficient only to cover costs.'  Now let's get this straight. £80 for four hour lecture session with about 30 others = about £600 per hour just to cover costs? In some cases the attendees are over double that number. In Wales two firms are getting through 6000 a month. 

We know motorways are the safest roads in the UK and that there are not 500,000 crashes going on so, not only does it show that speeding causes nothing, but that perhaps the limit is too low. 

This same principle should apply to other roads too. This rise is also a result of no longer setting speed limits to the 85%tile formula so clearly indicating a flaw in speed limit setting as well. 

DU has already done a lot of work on the subject of speed courses. See Hereand Here  and can find no legal authority whereby due process can be replaced by taking money, often for courses run by firms and where profit is retained by the police when they run them. This money is to perpetuate the system. We have however found the unjustified excuse cooked up between ACPO Ltd and the CPS for them though.

To assume that drivers would prefer the courses is based on whether their ticket was justified in the first place. Oh yes what a welcome offer to drivers but what if they had been conned in the first place? What if their error was enticed by the authorities and the ticket wasn't justified anyway?

Our studies show that, because the system and business of courses has been set up, including paid staff, it is counter to stopping the offending and an incentive to allow offending to persist. The system now depends on speeding and not stopping it. Our research proves unequivocally that is exactly what is happening. 

We also know that the courses do not cover the offence that got drivers there but on the contrary produce stats and examples that had nothing to do with what was on the citation at all. When it comes to speeding, the courses do not tell the truth at all, so the courses are often dishonest. See our open letter to Richard Madely Here

In Wales alone two firms are getting through about 6000 so called offenders a month at £80 each. 

Isn't the Daily Mail concerned about this massive scam that actually avoids true accident causes for profit?

It's not a 'war' it's irresponsible.

As I write, 62 cyclists have died on our roads in 2015 already. See. A section of our community, mostly cyclists, will always seek revenge and punishment of the drivers involved. Any suggestion that road cycling itself is dangerous brings outrage and claims of 'victim blaming'. It's an attitude that assumes from the start that accidents involving cyclists are deliberate so thus require justice and revenge. But cooler heads are needed if we are not to overlook the obvious just so that a dangerous scenario may be promoted with the peculiar belief that jailing drivers when it all goes wrong, will somehow make things better. Perhaps by jailing drivers the public conscience can be slaked.

Just look at these stories: Here and Here and Here and and here  OK so a driver did something wrong. Ok a driver is on trial. But does that undo the loss? Does that bring the dead back? Worse does that stop it happening again? 

In one story the road is to be closed for many hours to 'investigate' the accident. Why? It's too bloody late; the horse has bolted, the cyclist is dead. In any case the facts of how and why are already clear as in most road accidents. See more about that here. 

Part of the justification is to treat road accidents as murder now. That may well be in the vested interests of those in The Accident Investigation business, but in the public interest who does it actually serve? How many millions will today's closure cost the community?

So just look at the four cases I have posted and the other 58 this year. What is the common denominator? Humans mixing and mingling with heavy moving machinery and that it wasn't intended either. Of course it will kill people.

Trying to make this into a 'war' between two factions is irresponsible and avoiding reality. 

Cycling speed kills cyclists.

Hi

As ex police accident and driving experts we are concerned by the dangers of road cycling and that after tragic cycling deaths, drivers are then faced with long terms of imprisonment for an error. 

In your story about the woman on trial after bumping into a cyclist who died, the speed of the cyclist, estimated at 25 MPH, would've have been the major factor in the tragic outcome. See story here

The reality is that cycling can be defined as an unprotected human, on two flimsy wheels and a slender frame, mixing, mingling, impeding and often competing with, large essential fast moving machinery, operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. 

The speed of an unprotected cyclist, high from the ground, will be a major factor in the outcome of all their accidents.  Of course the driver shouldn't have made a mistake. But that is what humans do all the time. What may have played a part in her not seeing the cyclist is a well known effect known to fast jet pilots and can be read here.  Here

Basically cyclists must realise that they are very exposed and that their speed will kill them should someone else do something wrong. See one dead & two serious from cycling speed.

This trial of blame for a dangerous scenario that society encourages, may well miss the true cause of this fatality. Had the cyclist been riding slower he would more than likely still be alive today.

Keith Peat

http://www.driversunion.co 

IAM get dangerous driving wrong.

In an ITV story about high speed drivers doing 120 to 136 MPH in Wales The IAM refer to it as 'speeding'  See it here

'Those guilty of this level of excessive speeding are clearly not deterred by a short ban or fine. Their minds need to be concentrated to appreciate that they are putting other road users at significant danger by acting in this way. It is crucial that drivers and riders receive continuous development.

– SARAH SILLARS, IAM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'

***********************************************************************

I have a lot of time for IAM and especially their students who clearly take their driving seriously enough to take their courses. But I have challenged IAM about this confusion between 'speeding' that can cause nothing and dangerous driving that does on earlier occasions. See it here I have no idea if Sarah Sillars has any ex police background to support her comment but in it she exposes a vested interest by promoting 'continuous development' and that of course is where she and IAM make their income isn't it?

I have gone to a lot of trouble, including examples and even a little quiz to explain speed and the offences of speed Here

In short if speeding is at 71MPH, it cannot still just be speeding at 136MPH some 65MPH over the limit. It is dangerous driving. If there were any doubt then accept from me that if one crashed and killed at that speed the charge would not be death by speeding. And there you have it.

It should worry us all that IAM should get this driving reality so wrong and in doing so, promote the Speeding Industry who also run courses that don't tell the truth about speed, speeding, cameras and accidents. To expose their true aspiration at the same time is quite incredible. That kind of suggestion should only be made by truly independent driving and accident experts with no vested interests.

IAM are doing all drivers no favours by perpetuating and promoting the Speeding Industry like this. Being an IAM does not stop you from getting a totally unnecessary speeding ticket and a corrupt course to go with it.

So we again ask IAM to abandon its support of the Speeding Industry Profiteering and support Drivers Union with it's aims for genuine not for profit road safety instead.