The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at www.driversunion.co


For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Left & Right Wing. Who needs them?

Left Wing? Right Wing? A very ancient and old trick that has always worked for irrelevant and angry minorities and most of us fall for it.

It's really simple. Get your minority single issue group, whether right or wrong, to be considered equally as important as what really is valid and important, then every issue can be debated on the incorrect premise of two equal sides. 

For example: Look how much was achieved, by corralling a number of different Christian groups under the obsolete and irrelevant word 'Protestant'. The reality is that the last Protestant died some 500 years ago and of course whereas, Catholicism is a distinct religious faith, Protestantism is merely a Catholic word for all the others who are not Catholic. Thus was created the impression of two tribes, when in reality it was one tribe continually at variance with every one else. It works very well. Basically it elevates a single issue minority to the level of the majority. 

Probably the best and current example of this is the very powerful single issue minority Cycling Lobby and their contrived road war with UK's 35 million drivers. and their 'Two tribes'. On this occasion, here is AA's Edmund King employing the 'Us and them barrier'.
 King cited inflammatory twitter account He loves to foment a fictitious cycle war with this. Here he used it before the Transport Select Committee and they fell for it.

The reality is that whereas all 65 million of us depend on all drivers- society only needs walkers and drivers- cyclists are just a loud unneeded minority. By this ruse - of two tribes-, they have made themselves to appear as big and essential to the community as drivers are. So far that has worked too. 

So clearly it is a common and successful ruse for any lobby to act as if they are a crucial and creditable part of two sides and strangely, we all seem to fall for it.  

So what is Left Wing & Right Wing? Who get's to decide who is who? Surely reality isn't about Left & Right but just right & wrong isn't it? Don't we want our lives and society run on the basis of the best policy on any individual issue as opposed to an ideology? 

Like the non Catholics allowed themselves to be labeled with the Catholic word 'Protestant' (Proddy Dog) to their disadvantage, why do we readily accept the Left Wing description of those who disagree with them as being Right Wing? I am not Right Wing at all. 

The reality is that all Left Wingers are not individual original thinkers. They work to a mantra and are totally predictable on any issue. Climate Change, Fracking, animal testing, Nuclear Power, Motor Transport, cycling, nationality, migration, wind power and so on.

They are incapable of any original thought because all of them, at any age, are stuck in their sixth form adolescence whereas the majority of us grow out of it. 

Often claiming the moral high ground and supported by Church leaders, who seem to think that God expects us all to be mugs to be Christian. 


One of the tricks is to stage demo's, very often where a tiny amount of people can loudly cause maximum disruption, that appears to be representative of far more people than it really is. 

Yes Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square full of people looks a lot when in fact it's only about 0.007% of the Nation.

Another common tactic by Left Wing, Green and single issue minority groups, is to invent nasty names and labels when they cannot make a rational case. 'Racist, fascist, sexist, denier' and so on. As a result, we have been running the UK on the basis of not being called silly names. See here. 
Remove silly names from their armory and the Left Wing amount to very little.

There is no opposite to Left Wing, simply because the rest can be infinitely variable and unpredictable on any given issue. Intelligent thinkers are simply not predictable.  So let's kill off this dangerous and unneeded 'Two Tribes' and settle for what's right and wrong. What the majority believe, issue by issue.  And to do that, we must listen to these people most too.

Thursday, 22 September 2016

How cyclists put their lives in the hands of strangers.

Just study this video. Narrow road and a cyclist, aware of a truck right behind him, is pumping like mad to keep ahead of the lorry.

There would have been plenty of opportunity for the cyclist to have pulled on to a drive, to get out of its way, as I often did without a thought and in consideration of others, but this type of cyclist doesn't think like that.

What this shows is that cyclists, in a belief in their rights, are prepared to put their lives in the hands of complete strangers in massive machines, with completely diverse mentality and skill, who may be unwell, tired, stressed or distracted, in a way that no right thinking human would normally do.

Of course this activity kills and maims cyclists. 

See what it did to Richard Branson.

How can any politician, police or alleged road safety group encourage road cycling like this unless they are anti driver ideologists or cycling profiteers? 

But this selfish madness would've obstructed this truck driver and his essential load several times a day; and thousands like him too several times a day. So not only are these unneeded human hazards a massive liability for drivers, they are costing our economy millions of pounds too.

Why is this being allowed at all? Society doesn't need cyclists on roads any more than it doesn't need them on railway tracks either. 

Road users must be confined to who we need now and not who wants to be on them anymore. Surely that is basic sense. 

Why is everything to do with roads, driving & road safety run by women?

Look OK, we can mess around with feminist equality to a point, but not when it comes to driving and road safety.

                 Magnificent Seven

Generally, women are far too emotional when it comes to things like speed, road safety, driving and overtaking and casualties to be objective about it and certainly don't tend to normally involve themselves with anything mechanical or technical either. Those things are usually better understood by what feminists call 'Stale Pale and Male' In a previous blog, see it here, I demonstrate this and how SPAM has been totally excluded from governance too. 

What do these seven women have in common?


Add caption
Liz Truss Minister of Justice Lord Chancellor
Amber Rudd Home Sec.
Sara Thornton Chair NPCC
Theresa May. PM Ex Home Sec
















Suzette Davenport
Well none of them have any CV or experience in top class driving and yet they are all running UK's roads, drivers and driver justice between them.

Suzette Davenport is not interested in genuine sensible road safety, read more of her here and together with CPS & Alison Saunders brought in a misuse of fixed penalty where, for the first time in its history, was turned from absolute objectivity to a catch all subjective method for police, on a whim, to avoid justice. See here.

Theresa May, now PM but prior to that was Home Secretary in charge of police. See this about her days as Home Secretary here, 
Where single issue anti driver lobby groups thrived and together with Suzette Davenport and Sara Thornton (Head of policing), police have been encouraged to promote single issue minority lobbies at the expense of the majority. 

Louise Ellman, left wing pro cycling chair of Transport Select Committee. Here there is no better example of a naive women being taken advantage of by snake oil salesmen and giving away £650,000,000 per year of taxpayer's cash. And here, under Ellman, her committee ignore honest expert evidence to promote road safety dishonesty.

The problem with women in a male domain is that they are wide open to the Charlatans and frauds. That is why UK supports a multi billion pound profit based road safety industry and much of it is illegal, corrupt and very dangerous.

It won't occur to these women that we now have a Road Traffic Empire, way and above anything we need that is taking so much from police budgets that the police are suffering from it, never mind the money that could be spent saving lives elsewhere like NHS & A&E. Genuine profitless road safety would save more too. See why here. And look at this newly invented international Traffic Association, by our traffic boys, where they can go off on costly bun-fights, to listen to anti driver frauds and profiteers such as Edmund King of the AA for example. (Remember him fooling Louise Ellman's Committee?) Well here is an Example of Edmund making money from fraudulent awareness courses.

Under these naive women, these bogus road safety people have even been getting honours; Like King's OBE for example.

Ok so the case is made. The evidence is indisputable. Roads, Drivers, prosecutions, policing, road safety, is all in the hands of the most unsuitable, vulnerable and naive people society could have chosen.

Saunders, Davenport & Thornton should not be in their posts and policing must go back to represent and reflect what normal ordinary majority would want. Fixed penalty must be restored to its original purpose, confined to the objective & absolute. Most careless driving fixed penalties could not be proven at trial. This was such a gross mistake that those who were behind it must stand down. 

Liz Truss, and Amber Rudd are new enough to be given a chance to kick out all common purpose policy and make roads infrastructure and drivers a priority because we need them. They must listen to experts with no axe to grind.

Ellman needs to stand down. Like all left wingers, she hasn't moved on from adolescent naivety and predictable ideology and is thus not suited for the role. 

Under these women, our 'hard up' police are able to attend expensive anti community conferences too.

See this one.

And this one too.

Theresa must man up. More SPAM in Government please. 




Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Your camera,, your computer, your freedom, and police rights.

What right do police have to interrogate a piece of kit, on a fishing exercise after an accident, that you didn't ask for, has been installed in your car for Air Bag operation, belongs to you and paid for by you?  

Event Data Recorder
Well of course police would have no authority to examine anything you own after an accident would they. So here's one good reason why police no longer acknowledge road accidents and treat them all as crime. In effect your car is now a crime scene. See more on the cancellation of accidents here. 

 'But the most obvious reason that the word 'accident' has been ditched is that police can look for a culprit from the word go. In fact, the routine arrest of drivers after an accident before anything has been established is all part of this.'

Let's make a distinction between examining a piece of personal kit, like a phone or a laptop that is actually pertinent to or the cause of a suspected crime, such as texting whilst driving or grooming kiddies etc which you have employed and used, as opposed to a data recorder that you own and has not caused or is suspected of causing the accident and that you haven't used. If tyres or brakes could've caused the accident, then yes by all means police are right to investigate them for negligence or for a fault but EDRs do not cause accidents and are just part of an air bag system. 

'In The USA the information stored in EDRs is useful for the composite data it generates about air bag use and effectiveness. It is also useful in individual instances because it provides information about a vehicle’s use and condition in the moments before an accident. This clip of information can prove crucially important. It has already been used in multiple cases to prosecute drivers who were driving at reckless speeds before fatal collisions.. Despite many drivers’ insistence that while driving they did not exceed reasonable speeds, EDR data often indicated otherwise, and has been admitted against many drivers at trial to secure felony convictions for reckless driving.'

'A 55-year-old man was prosecuted at Oxford Crown Court for causing death by dangerous driving when his Chrysler 300 ploughed into the back of a queue of traffic on the M40.
The 70mph impact killed a passenger in the vehicle in front of him.
American car manufacturers must make airbag systems that can be investigated to assess speed, deceleration and braking in the event of a crash.
Read was asked by Thames Valley Police to assess the data, which revealed the driver had only started to brake 0.5 seconds before impact.
“The data was crucial in successfully prosecuting the driver' 

I do not support any form of dangerous driving or any driver offences but justice is far more important than any driving issues. Convictions cannot be based on the accused incriminating themselves without consent.

Why; just look at the formal police caution that explains to you your right not to incriminate yourself verbally and that is for statutory crime, not merely because police are making accidents a crime just because there's been an accident. 

The prosecution cannot even compel a spouse to betray their partner to provide evidence against them in a road case. So to be able to go fishing in a system whereby the defendant is effectively providing police with evidence against himself is clearly wrong. 

Tell police they do not have your consent to use your kit against you and if they ignore you, make sure you tell your solicitor so it's challenged at any hearing. Why not? 

More on EDR here.

What about Dash Cams?
Well again, for all the very same reasons, it didn't play any part or was relevant to any accident. Do not allow police to examine it until you have down loaded the pictures yourself and ensured they support you and don't incriminate you. It's your kit for your protection. Like all defendants, it's for the prosecution to make their case and not for you to make it for them.

Finally, it's the habit for police, when they stop drivers who they suspect of an offence, to ask them to sit in the rear of their car. They then lock them in. This is for police security where often a lone officer can be quite vulnerable. If they then decide to arrest you or you become animated, they then merely send for assistance as you're already in custody. 

Always politely decline to get into any police car. It really doesn't look good if the neighbours are watching. Why not invite the officer to sit in your car instead; especially if in inclement weather? You do have the choice and who wants to be locked into a police car anyway? It's very intimidating you know.

Make the Anti Driver Taliban prove their own cases without your help.










Saturday, 17 September 2016

For the idiots who think they can live without cars.

This ruinous bullying of major infrastructure, 35000000 servants of the community, by a tiny unneeded minority assisted by Metropolitan Elite Common Purpose Police, is against all of us. It must be stopped. The Highways are our arteries not their playground.

The context of my observations is in a scenario where cyclists are demanding more and more very costly changes which can only be a disadvantage to drivers but in addition the cycle lobby is also demanding more punishment and jail time for drivers too. So therefor it is right to enquire two aspects. 

1) If it's that risky and dangerous now, should it continue? That then leads to 2) defining what is essential for the survival of the community and our society as a whole? When you do that you realise that there are only two. 

If we didn't walk we would all perish, so pedestrians are a no brainer. A little more explanation for the next class; drivers.  However the term 'driver' is thousands of years old.  Let's totally dismiss anti driver cycling nut Carlton Reid's, Roads Weren't Built For Cars, as the nonsense propaganda that it is. See it destroyed here. 

Manpower travel simply wasn't good enough so man took to the horse-the predecessor to the motorbike- then chariots, carts, wagons, traps, pony mail, fast stage coaches etc. From those came our bigger societies all built and based on long distance fast heavy haulage and passenger transport. Without it even railways wouldn't exist. From the 50s onwards all this was replaced totally by the more efficient modern fast, load carrying road transport of today. Because that was cheaper, more efficient and readily available, society spread out and expanded. Everything now depends on road transport, including rail & air travel. Less obvious the private car. It is the essential link between public transport but also how the majority of its staff get to their jobs. Out of town shopping precincts to enable once a week big household shopping because women work too and we have freezers. These places depend for their turnover on car users, surrounded by mass free car parks and cheap fuel to encourage it. The NHS staff car parks all full, the water workers, food and power suppliers, without that we all die very soon and they're all dependent on cars. Unless you sleep on a railway platform, cars are the essential link to rail, likewise airports. So we have identified two essential road users.

Cycling however didn't build or ever sustain our society. In fact if all cyclists packed in, the economy and society generally wouldn't collapse at all or hardly notice. Does society depend on cyclists? No! Did it ever? No!

But the road safety record of UK's drivers actually shows how good they are and not how bad they are. Your analogy of archery, is the same as shooting at targets too. But neither are allowed in public are they?

I am continuously pointing out that the evidence is that cyclists are being treated in a patient, sensible manner all the time. But whether you understand it or not, they are a liability to an essential road user and very often don't even acknowledge how much care is being shown to them. 

Drivers being human and very average too, make mistakes and get things wrong. What a cyclist feels too close, is often not close from the drivers' perspective. The cyclist's insecurity is actually his brain telling him 'This is bloody dangerous' and carrying on regardless. Perhaps it's time that we accepted the natural instinct is absolutely right about that and hearkened to the brain.

See anti driver pro cyclist police cheating against drivers.

See evidence of pro-cyclist police ideology. 


Friday, 16 September 2016

We warned you about the catch-all misuse of fixed penalty & now pro cycling police are using it.



We warned you about the misuse of fixed penalty for anything a driver does on a catch-all basis on a police officer's whim. See it all here & Here

You may recall it was sold to media using populist issues such as lane hogging, tailgating & so on, but these could already have been prosecuted as careless driving if the police believed in their case. FP commits them to no trial, and they are then able to extract a guilty plea by coercion without proving it at court. Never plead guilt to careless driving by FP. Make em prove their case we said.

Now in this Sky News story,  The police are to use this cheating process on behalf of one of their favourite single issue lobby groups, cyclists, again on the basis of subjective nonsense. See here how subjective the issue is: Even the Highway Code Rule makes no sense and more about the issue here.

Sky News who promote killer cycling even turned to the self promoting and cycling profiteer Chris Boardman  to con their viewers on this and he wants all forces to be doing it now. See here. And more of this dangerous fraud here and here

He of course trotted out the old health and obesity mantra when cycling depends on unnatural motion and muscle movement, - we are built for walking, running and swimming- and there are much better and safer ways of getting exercise anyway. Putting people into the path of and mixing with big essential machinery actually kills them believe it or not.

Then the red herring: 'Most cyclists are drivers'. Any driver who wants the prosecution and impeding of drivers, is anti driver. In any case I am a cyclist too like most drivers are. Hasn't Sky got the wit to see through all this?  

 Even Chris cannot explain why we must have cyclists on roads.

Image result for west midlands policeAnd here is Boardman telling cyclists they shouldn't wear helmets because they shouldn't need to.


How on earth can West Midlands Police and Sky even go near this dangerous profiteer?

Here are tweets that show police are now favouring an unneeded anti driver single issue group at the expense of needed road use. 

Well drivers so now you know. There are 35 million drivers and all 65 million people depend on you.
So you must get all this stopped. First passing distance is dependent on many variable factors. You don't have a tape measure so these prosecutions will never stand up at trial. Don't accept the ticket.

Secondly you must unite, have demos, lobby your MPs and use your power.

Now look at these videos to see what your anti driver police are supporting and prosecuting you for and no one asks why we need cyclists out on the road. 

Here having been provided at great cost a dedicated cycle lane at the expense of driver space, cyclists deliberately obstruct drivers as a right.  See it here.   

 

So here are your average cyclists, out on a jolly, pumping hard and slow up hill, not needed by the community, and taking it upon themselves be two abreast to dominate the road. So who are police going to prosecute and oppress? Essential road users! We must surely all ask the Question: 'Does the community need this?' 

Get a dash cam fitted immediately. Courts need to see the whole picture, not just the selective, distorted cyclist's version of an incident. 

Thursday, 15 September 2016

BREXIT We must now build home defence.

I have always been concerned about the ability of an independent UK to defend and protect its interests.

The following is from my post: Brexit what the f..k happened. Here

'We were no longer the Queen of the Seas, with a massive army and air force. I always take a 'bottom line worst case scenario' approach to any decision. So we leave the EU and Spanish Trawlers invade our fishing grounds. What do we do? Do we blow them out of the waters? Where's our Navy to keep Spain out of Gibraltar? Will America still help and support us to keep the Falklands?  Will anyone help us from the Western World? A gun boat defence of our domain takes us to war against the EU and how do we win? Who will aid us? All Farage seemed to talk about was self rule, borders, immigration, trade but not how we defended the independence he sought. '

There is an answer. We are no longer an empire. We don't need an Eastern Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Pacific Fleet, Atlantic Fleet and we don't need to be fighting other people's wars so we don't need massive tank armies either.

All we need to protect us, Gibraltar and Falklands, outside of the EU, is a large Home Fleet, enough soldiers and tanks to defend our territory, and increased fighter capacity.
 And we can now afford it. Brexit money and savings from Brexit must be put aside for it.  

We are well on the way to building two new large aircraft carriers so may as well use them as two mobile airbases based in the Channel and North Sea and these can be equipped with new fighters.  

We would be able to add coastal cutters to the existing Frigate and destroyer fleet and retain and maintain attack submarines.
 which can go anywhere as well as some type of sea borne independent nuclear strike capability even if not Trident. This keeps us at the Top Table. 

No more playing the costly World Policeman would also mean that we could focus on our interests too.

So far as the intrusive and encroaching fishing vessels, we would then be powerful enough to seize them and get away with it.

It's no good going independent unless we can protect ourselves. Our forces would no longer be too small, or overstretched, at home and much happier too.