How crazy deer save cyclists!

Travelling at night through French forests on the D924a & D44 north of Paris, friends had warned me about the deer that leap out from the sides into cars and so on.

These two way single carriageway roads are really straight or with gentle curves and could easily sustain 70 MPH. The limit though is about 50 MPH. Heeding my friend though I was keeping to about 40 MPH although the locals were doing higher speeds in both directions.

Probably these deer strikes are much rarer than the tales of them but being in France, with a long trip still to do, and of course our motor home is our accommodation too, this was not the time to be sustaining catastrophic damage to it.

The road was quite busy with lots of oncoming, which meant dipped headlights and from the oncoming glare very limited vision. Here is where rule 93 of the Highway Code means nothing. See more on that here In reality as the opposing vehicles pass, there is just blackness immediately in front of you momentarily and in that pool of black loomed, no more that 20 feet from my bumper, within my dipped beam range, there he was a cyclist. I yanked the wheel, towards the oncoming vehicle, and swerved around the cyclist and missed him and thankfully the oncoming car too.

What the hell was he doing there at all- other than a cyclist's peculiar right to place themselves in mortal danger that is? There was no prior sign of lights, he certainly wasn't using high intensity lighting and not wearing any hi viz clothing.

It occurred to me that had I hit him at 40 MPH and killed him, what the vicious Cycle Lobby, who think anything pro driver, pro genuine road safety and pro responding to their palpable self centered nonsense amounts to cycle hatred, would have made of it. 'Murder' they would've screamed to the Gendarmes and I would've had some explaining to do.

The trusty dash cam had fallen off that same day. Needless to say it has been re-installed and will be a priority in future.

I shudder to think.

Thank God for crazy deer.

IPCC refuse complaint only on a technicality

It seems the Anti Driver Brigade, putting genuine road safety last as usual, are salivating about the IPCC decision not to uphold an appeal against North Yorkshire Police who did use a bereaved to promote a false road safety and driving statement. For these stupid people,

the law is that until NYP sue me for that last remark, it is a matter of fact.

For the full story go to Our page here and of course our blog story that replaced the original one that someone had caused to be removed Here 

Of course the NYP would deny having anything to do with the removal of the first report, but let's not be in any doubt, there is a massive and corrupt 'Speeding' Industry out there that depends on speeders to sustain itself. We have been able to show that the system is now very much based on a regular turnover from speeders and this means that there isn't an incentive to stop or cure speeding but to actually cause it. See Speed inducement sites

As I regularly point out, if there is a high number of speeders being generated at a site, something is going wrong so why let it continue? It means that speed policy at the site is failing. If these were accidents, would police just take pictures or find out why they're happening and correct it? So what is happening is that speeding is mercilessly being allowed to continue so that lots of money is being made by the Industry. This is a big story about big money. Little wonder then that a blog page suddenly disappears and the police resort to angry name calling then is it. 

Little wonder then that my complaints about unspecified officers of NYP were unanswered initially either. But I persisted, pages were replaced, reminders were sent.

For the record, apart from calling me names, 'Abusive', 'Vexatious' and 'Oppressive', at no stage did NYP deny that 'speeding' cannot cause accidents. They tried to say it was the bereaved's fault for contacting them so that they could misuse his grief. It wasn't for him to know that speeding cannot cause anything, but it certainly was for NYP RPU to know. Either way they used a bereaved to promote very profitable false road safety policy. Will they sue me for saying that? Of course not. It's the truth

The IPCC only refused my appeal on a technicality, however I am confident that if police repeat these false statements about 'speeding' the IPCC have a better understanding of the serious nature of the false statement. In the meantime, on IPCC advice, I have raised this matter to a higher level. 

One of the serious effects of pretending that 'speeding' causes accidents, is that it deflects, as in this case, from the real accident cause which was dangerous driving and nothing more can exemplify this very worrying trend whereby Careless and dangerous driving, which both cause fatalities are excluded from the Fatal Four campaign yet 'speeding' which causes nothing has been included. When the Speeding Industry can blatantly promote their income like this at the expense of real accident causes, the time has come to kill the Speeding Industry and all its profiteers with it. It is deadly serious. While they make money, people are being maimed and killed because the real causes are being ignored. . 

It is also a worry that the authorities behind the Fatal Four campaign, especially Leicestershire's Fire Chief, have refused to answer my very polite concerns about their part in this. Read more here 

But silence obviously means reluctant assent. If LF&R & NYP are unable to deny that speeding cannot cause anything then, in the name of road safety, they should confess it. Take it from me, this lie will need to be laid and the Corrupt Industry that benefits from it, must be dismantled as soon as possible.

If you agree with me, then please help by taking it up with your politicians and making a donation to our campaign for genuine road safety at Motorists & Drivers Union Home Page

Poll: Should police tell truth?

In the meantime they can only call me silly names for being right about them. 
   

So even Chris Boardman cannot provide reasoned justification for hampering essential infrastructure.

We are about road safety & drivers. There should be nothing to detest and dislike about that, unless of course you are a keen cyclist and cycling lobby promoter.

There is currently a video doing the rounds, promoted by the Guardian and the left wing elitists, 

 produced by a non expert in driving telling us how to pass cyclists. Watch the video It lauds the absolutely ridiculous, subjective and unworkable rule 163 of the Highway code. See it, and my workable alternative rule here Blaine Walsh is described as a 'Master driving instructor' In the video. Is he an ex class one police advanced driver or just someone who has passed civilian tests? Well his understanding of road reality and citing a nonsense rule would suggest he's no expert. He actually considers passing a group of cyclists at a point where it would be illegal anyway.  

In 2014 The Transport Select Committee, under Louise Ellman MP, sat and heard the cycle lobby, including Chris Boardman,

and its demands for £10 a head annually from every man, Jack of us without ever asking 'why must we have road cycling if it has so many issues?' before awarding them the money, £650 million per year. Not one of the committee asked why we must allow people to expose themselves to hamper and impede major infrastructure in a way we would never impose on rail or air infrastructure for pure road safety reasons. See the report on this here. They have now got their £650 Million a year based on no reasonable questions of them, and now drivers are being hampered with its use, as in the construction of 'cycling super highways' 99% don't need yet must pay for.

It is clear, from this latest demand, that it will become virtually impossible to ever pass a cyclist legally if they get their way on this one too. And, so far, not one politician seems to have the guts to face up to this very aggressive and persistent minority of self interest that none of us need.  

Who, in Parliament is going to stand up and represent genuine road safety and the rest of us who know that cycling is not a viable transport mode and put this loud minority in its place?

Now I have flushed out Chris Boardman himself- the cycling marketeer with vested interest- and my question to him and the Guardian, 'Why must we have road cyclists?' Seems to have stumped him.

But why on earth are the IAM

supporting Boardman and the elitists? Aren't they supposed to be for drivers? Can't they see rule 163 is unworkable? In the name of road safety, do they really want drivers to be faced with unnecessary road hazards and liabilities? Don't tell me that they are going to run 'How to Pass Cyclist' courses - for pure altruistic road safety reasons you understand- next? 

Drivers wake up. Get your MPs to stand up to all this nonsense.

And here in these tweets you see that even Boardman cannot answer a fair question. 'Why must we have road cyclists?' Is no-one supposed to ask?

@EastMidsDrivers I pay for roads? I have a legal right? It's good for me & my kids? It doesn't pollute? Shall I go on?

— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) August 14, 2015

@Chris_Boardman @EastMidsDrivers 》Gun lovers & murderers pax taxes too what's tax to do with anything? So why must we have cycling? 》

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) August 14, 2015

5 a side football teams pay taxes but we don't allow it in the road Chris.

@Chris_Boardman @EastMidsDrivers 》Pollution? Yet without motor transport we all die now from lack of basics & with we live longer. 》

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) August 14, 2015

@Chris_Boardman @EastMidsDrivers 》 Good for kids? Exposed to big machines run by total strangers of varying ability & mental capacity? 》

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) August 14, 2015

@Chris_Boardman @EastMidsDrivers see http://t.co/oERADsdX3t it's about you. 'Shall I go on?

— Driver Hatred (@Driver_Hatred) August 14, 2015

On matters of health see We challenge BMA & BMA says 'cycling death is worth it'.
On Elitists running our roads. See http://bit.ly/1GPQe7k 

Most irritating?

	AccuraCast        www.accuracast.com

 A recent survey from Salop Leisure into the most irritating road users has discovered that motorists in the West Midlands get most annoyed by cycles, farm vehicles and elderly drivers (in that order). Caravans and learner drivers, on the other hand, were found to be amongst the least irritating road users.

   

Main findings:

·         Over one fifth of respondents picked cyclists as the most irritating road user, and this figure shoots up to over one third amongst the 65+ age bracket;

·         37.5 percent of elderly male respondents picked cyclists as their worst enemy, but elderly women are slightly more patient, with 29.7 percent of over 65 female respondents choosing this road user.

You can see a full breakdown of the survey results here:salopleisure.co.uk/Press/Caravanners+one+of+the+least+annoying+road+users+in+the+Midlands/4271

Why did this driver accept blame?

Why did this driver get charged? Who advised him to accept blame?  This death happened at a notoriously dangerous junction.  

John Dedman

There is also a sound scientific defence to not seeing a cyclist. See it here.

Then there is the concept of road cycling: Here


Are the lawyers letting drivers down in doing plea bargaining if their client has a brilliant defence?

Cyclists. Being right and being wrong will never put you back together again. It's a killer scenario.

Please Don't Murder Me

Why has the Daily Mirror and the Birmingham Mail missed the obvious point about this article Please don't murder me ?

It's just as daft as a man running backwards and forwards over a live firing range shouting: 'Please don't murder me too'. See We call it 'Taking your life in your own hands' 

Cycling is for an unprotected human to be on two flimsy wheels, high off the ground and travelling at unnatural speed while mixing, mingling, exposing themselves to large moving essential machinery operated by complete strangers of varied ability and mental capacity.  

What on earth does the Mirror and Birmingham Mail think will happen?

Wouldn't the media be more responsible to suggest to this chap that he should perhaps consider not doing it any more? To accept that the problem with road cycling is the very concept of it? To ask why we are still encouraging it when history shows that when many more were cycling and far less were driving, many more cyclists were killed. See it here.

Well the drop in cycling in Birmingham, is mostly because 99% of people have no interest in cycling simply because its isn't a viable transport mode. All the subsidising and promoting of cycling is as pointless as promoting wind-farms: Most people will see through it and have no belief in it. Why on earth would people want to go backwards to the 1930s when more were forced to cycle, live near to work and relatives, carry heavy bags daily from the expensive local shopping parade and depend totally on public transport to go anywhere else and anything above suitcase size had to be delivered or collected by someone at a price? 

It's just a fad so perhaps Birmingham's falling cycling numbers is just the first to show it.   

So the more who cycle & the less who drive kills more cyclists?

In this BBC story  We see that back in 1934 when there were far less drivers, and especially car drivers, and many more cyclists there were far more cycling deaths on GB's roads. In fact  1536 cyclists died then compared to 109 in 2014. And this was when there were far fewer people living here too.

To get this in perspective, in 2013 there were a total of 1713 road deaths of all types so with more drivers and driver journeys and less cyclists, far less of all types are dying and certainly far less cyclists are dying too.

So what is a fact here. When there was far less driving and much more cycling far more cyclists were being killed. In fact 14 times more were being killed than now. So who was killing them then?

Perhaps we should just look at the concept for the answer:

'Why do we also ignore that road cycling is placing one's unprotected body, high up on two slender wheels at unnatural speeds, among and competing with large essential relatively fast moving machines, operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity? That is road cycling in a nutshell. Would humans normally behave like that unless it were cycling? If the concept were only just being suggested and proposed now, we would send for the men in white coats. How can politicians and the media ignore the reality and encourage more to do it?'

Are we failing to see the obvious? What is killing cyclists, with or without drivers, is primarily the concept of road cycling and these figures tend to support it.

Why then are we trying to get more people on bikes and out of their cars?

2015 Cyclist death to date

And here is Rod King of 20's Plenty trying to rationalise this by ignoring the concept of road cycling as the major and primary killer.


 @DriverUnion @Pacts @transportgovuk @CommonsTrans @CCHQPress Poor, poor Keith. He doesn't realise that in 1934 cars had no speed limits!

— Rod King (@20splentyforus) July 1, 2015