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

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Monday, 4 January 2016

Should a gay woman be head of roads policing?

Suzette Davenport, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Police, is head of the NPCC Roads Policing.

Suzette is a declared gay. She outs herself here

Suzette Davenport
Of course there is no problem with a gay woman heading the police providing that she does so pragmatically and without any evidence of personal ideology and preferences playing any part in her policy.

From my own experience and evidence, I am afraid to say that men and women are different in many ways, and none more so than attitudes to driving, drivers and road safety.

Generally women tend to base their road safety ideas on emotionalism instead of fact. This is why anti driver BRAKE is run mostly by women with no road safety CV See. and Here too . Most calls for more driver punishment are made by women MPs and most anti driver academics tend to be young women with no CV in road safety too. See

So is there any evidence that Ms Davenport is in fact anti driver? Yes there is.

Under her, for the first time in its history, fixed penalty became subjective to prosecute drivers without trial for the third most serious driving offence, careless driving. See See the case and Suzette on this too

The dishonest Fatal 4 initiative that falsely claims speeding can cause fatals, yet oddly ignores careless and dangerous driving that do cause fatals. See Suzette is behind this one too and More on that lie here

Then under Suzette the amazing situation where  DfT officials are being allowed to dictate to police, how to submit false stats on accident causes. See it here

Now add to that that she is a cyclist, and here she is in her Team Sky kit doing a 300 mile charity ride. As I have terminal spine cancer myself, I do support her choice of charity, but why use roads and impose another unnecessary hazard on drivers for charity? Why not bungee jump, or do a free fall parachute jump instead? Would we impose cycling on rail or air infrastructure like this? We do have ample evidence of lycra al a Wiggo racing style cyclists like this who really do see drivers as the enemy. 

So all in all, the evidence is that Suzette Davenport is one who seems to be allowing her personal ideology to affect her role output. She's certainly overseeing a corrupt and dishonest profit base road safety regime.

Well we have given her a chance to address all this and so in this detailed open letter to her we have outlined all that is wrong and corrupt with police road safety policy. See it here

So if Suzette isn't man enough to address all this honestly on the basis that anti driver aggression, is by definition, anti community too, then it's time she stood down. 

After all, how does it help gay women if their first ever top police officer appears to be so stereotypical in policy and outlook?  It doesn't. 


  1. Hmm, should we impose cars on cycling infrastructure? Air is for planes, rail is for trains and roads are for vehicles and horses. All vehicles - cycles motorbikes lorries buses etc.
    You seem quite happy for drivers to break the law by speeding, careless driving etc. but I bet you're one of these people who have a fit if you see a cyclist go through a red light. Not that I condone that. I see plenty cars go through red lights and a bus the other week. Oh go on - tell me you've never been through a red light.
    As for whether a gay woman is fit to be in charge, her sexuality has nothing to do with it. If she's risk averse as women tend to be compared to men (imho) that's a good thing as there will be fewer accidents.

  2. Motor transport, like rail & air is essential infrastructure and in fact rail and air depend on motor transport too. Cycling isn't needed by society and is an unnecessary extra liability on essential infrastructure

    I do not condone driver law breaking but expose thr corruption and ptofiteering behind much law with a view to getting it correctedl.

    No I am very calm and don't hsve fits.

    As to sexuality, is that more important than dangerous road safety corruption that fails to address killer causes but profits illegally from the manufactured prosecution of many thousands of perfectly safe drivers? False statistics to support profiteering at the expense of genuine road safety?

    Well for whatever reason this woman is letting it happen. If she's innocent then she will address it. As I say, it does seem to fit the steriotype of a green lefty and does her gender no justice.

    Uless she seew her wrongs, the wrong person is in the wrong job and she should stand down.

  3. Of course cycling is needed by society. The more bikes there are, the fewer cars there are on the roads so fewer traffic jams. Less pollution, less use of fossil fuels. Everybody wins. Remember, most cyclists have a car as well and they can't drive both at the same time.
    Oh and that bit about cycling being a hazard to drivers - I think you've got that the wrong way round. 2 tons of steel travelling at 30mph is a bit more of a hazard than 20kg of alloy going at 15.

    Ok speeding doesn't directly cause accidents but does make them more likely. If you don't want the fine, keep to the limit. Simples!

    1. Not at all. Without cars now the economy would collapse overnight and not so without cyclists. Pollution? But we are all living longer with motor transport.

      Of course most cyclists drive too. I am a cylist too but if I had to ditch one it would be the bike. Load/distance/time/passengers.

      Yes we need to stick to corrupt inexpert arbitrary limits. Have you read all the detail in the open letter to Ms D? It doesn't seem so.

  4. "But we are all living longer with motor transport". How on earth do you work that one out?

    Cycling is good. Driving is good. You admit you cycle too so why denigrate cycling so much? Why even suggest ditching one? They both have benefits. They both have drawbacks. So?

    This entire blog, by the nature of its title, claims to represent driving in the East Midlands. Therefore, if you call on the betterment of driving as a means of transport then why don't don't you do just that.

    Think about it Keith. Potholes. Cars can horrendously damaged by them so campaign to get them fixed or the roads resurfaced. More motorways. Build motorways that are in logical places. Focus on the development of electric cars. Cheaper for the driver and better for the environment.

    Now on to this post specifically. Wow. Absolutely disgusting you should mention her sexuality and her gender in questioning her suitability for the role. The title of the post, "Should a gay woman be head of roads policing?" is disgraceful. How dare you? Who are you? Are you well? I think you need some help. Think about what you write Keith. I, as well as many other who come across your blog will totally disregard it because of this and other rhetoric.

    You have lost my interest completely. And you will lose so many others.

    1. Last things first. The title is a question not a statement that a gay woman shouldn't lead police. The answer is in the body where I clearly state that sexuality and gender isn't an issue unless there is evidence that it may be a reason for an entrenched policy position. What the heading does however is get readers to read the subject more fully and not just stop at the heading as you want to do.

      Do you really think that sexuality is more important than dangerous and corrupt road safety? That even Ms Davenport should think so? If she does then she clearly isn't man enough for the job.

      Living longer? Well we are aren't we? Mankind expanded not on manpower walking or cycling but for thousands of years, by the predecessors of motor transport, the horse, the camel, the bullock, the wagon, the cart, the stage, the buggy and so on. Ever more efficient, we moved on to the IC engine, better speed, load and passenger carrying over longer distances. Now without road transport, particularly cars, nothing would run. Planes, trains, shipping, water supply, NHS, buses, food, doctors carers and so on. Without motor transport we all now wouldn't survive.

      I am not anti cyclist but pro driver. All I do is respond to anti driver comment. When cyclists complain against drivers, demand space from them, money, longer sentences etc, that's when it's fair to observe that society depends on drivers but not cyclists isn't it?

      Re potholes yes I do campaign about them and am the only one who has noted that it isn't pot holes but whole roads that broke up in one month of harsh winter around December 2011 & Jan 2012. Why did this happen? Because for years, Green officials, who believed in global warming, had been laying cheaper Mediterranean roads and this is why it's happened. To pay for this mistake, local authorities were handed power over drivers and to make money from them from all sorts of corrupt penalties. Why did these officials get away with this? Why weren't they sacked? That's the big cover up.

  5. 2/2

    Think of it this way: forget bicycles for a minute and imagine there were no pavements and people could walk anywhere on the road. Cars would be trying to get past but people would be whizzing between them to cross the road. Due to the narrow space of the road, a car would have to nearly stop to pass a pedestrian safety (giving the same distance as if they were overtaking a car, abiding by the Highway Code).

    Cars would be slowed down and couldn't move quickly, and those cars which did, may cause accidents and deaths if someone stepped into their path. So imagine if pedestrians campaigned for pavements to be installed that take some space up, but would mean that they can be protected from cars (as they are raised up), and cars would be able to move freely and quickly. Imagine it now so there is a pavement, a cycle path and a road. Three different modes of transport for people's protection, if they need it.

    Society doesn't depend on drivers but on people. If more people cycled short distances, there would be more space on the road. Picture a town where every single person drives. At rush hour, all of the roads around town are clogged as everyone is sat in over a tonne of metal taking up space. They crawl along. So slow. Also polluting the air massively as pumping out CO2 and other pollutants.

    Imagine if half of those people cycled the few miles to work instead. There would be less traffic on the road, meaning that the remaining cars could move freely and faster. It is not fair that drivers of vans for example, have to sit in congestion for hours when they are timed and rushed to get from place to place to make deliveries.

    Re: potholes. That is good you are campaigning against potholes. No, it has nothing to do with green officials Keith. If you look at the data, available on Google, for a long time central government has cut the budgets of county councils. It is county council who is responsible for local roads. With the cutbacks they have had to make, they direct money on, for example, schooling and libraries,, often ignoring potholes or poorly surfaced roads, or if it is terrible, they fill them in. Filling is bad as it is only a temporary solution. It will cause damage to cars after only a short time.

    People should be able to move freely, easily and quickly.

    1. Re Potholes. Incorrect. You are mistakenly forgetting that these roads all broke up in one month nationwide, not over a long period of neglect. They had been laying a much cheaper and quicker road surface prior to that. Previously roads just wore out over a long period they didn't break up suddenly nationwide in one cold snap. So ask who caused it and sack them.

      Society is people. Without people there's no society. But on roads we only need walkers and drivers now.

      CO2 is an essential gas that keeps us all alive. With motor transport society has grown and we live longer.

      But let's stick to the issue. All anti driver green officials are anti society and don't serve the majority. They must be shipped out.