info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Written evidence from the Drivers’ Union (RTL0002) (NOT OT!)
40 views
Skip to first unread message
colwyn
Nov 23, 2015, 6:22:49 AM11/23/15
to
For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
(Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
Should be interesting!
You can watch the evidence session live at 4.10pm here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb252945-8ad4-4eda-b3fa-4fe078055225
Summary Drivers Union. (They don't like cyclists!)
Road safety has developed haphazardly and piecemeal for over a
century and contains many shibboleths that do not bear scrutiny; some
are highly dangerous and contradictory and most are no longer relevant
to modern road infrastructure. It needs a bottom up review based on the
principle that road carriageways are essential and crucial
infrastructure on which all, including rail, air and see travel,
depends. Unnecessary hazards, liabilities and profiteers, should never
be imposed on any essential infrastructure
The Government's priorities and leadership role in improving road safety
through traffic law enforcement.
The focus on road safety and drivers already amounts to oppression of a
valuable resource, drivers. It is not cost effective if we are killing
more people by focusing on non accident causes at the expense of true
accident causes and infrastructure. Looking from outside the Road Safety
Industry bubble, many more lives could be saved off the road with the
multi £billions already being devoured by an insatiable industry too.
No law should be based on the aspiration of vested interests,
profit, ideology or unqualified nimbyism
Enforcement agencies' capacity to enforce DfT policy on dangerous and
careless driving.
We are not dealing with burglars, robbers and murderers who
generally have a prepared story for their pre-meditated conduct and
unless found committing, are never arrested until sufficient cause has
been established. All authorities should look much more compassionately
towards drivers who at great cost are providing a vital service within
an inherently dangerous scenario.
The introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving: how
these powers are being used, and whether alternatives to penalties
should be considered
This was the most ill conceived idea that was introduced by the
Government in the sacrifice of justice for police convenience and
against all valid and educated advice.
How on earth, if the driving was not deemed as careless driving prior to
FP, does FP suddenly create the offence of careless driving?
FP should only be appropriate for absolute and objective conduct not
subjective opinion where the right to fair trial is then under a threat
of a larger penalty. That this is a feature of far lesser FP offences
must be taken in the context that they are objective and absolute
whereas careless driving is pure subjective opinion which should be
tested at court and no less.
The impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of cyclists and
pedestrians.
Why are pedestrians linked with cyclists? Pedestrians are already
historically provided for in the infrastructure where they are separated
from motor traffic and the carriageway generally.
The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that society
must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We cannot
pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose unneeded
hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any other
crucial infrastructure.
The deployment of people and technology in enforcing road traffic policy.
Before going further, let’s start clawing back all the profit from
road safety and use that money to save more lives by focusing on genuine
accident causes, and in the NHS, Ambulance, Fire and Rescue and police
too. The Committee must start looking from outside the Road Safety and
Speeding Industry bubble.
The impact of devolution of road traffic enforcement activities to local
authorities.
This has been a disaster for drivers and a major infrastructure.
All roads and streets belong to all drivers and so in reality are
national. Roads and prosecution policy based on the personal and
parochial aspirations of local political unqualified nimbysim is total
disaster for major infrastructure. Do we run railways and air travel
like this?
Evidence
1(i) The Government's priorities and leadership role in improving road
safety through traffic law enforcement.
In my view the focus on road safety and drivers already amounts
to oppression of a valuable resource, drivers. It is not cost effective
if we are killing more people by focusing on non accident causes at the
expense of true accident causes and infrastructure. Looking from outside
the Road Safety Industry bubble, many more lives could be saved off the
road with the multi £billions already being devoured by an insatiable
industry too.
1(ii) An example of focusing on wrong causes can no better be
demonstrated but by looking at the Fatal 4 campaign where ‘speeding’,
simply to exceed a posted number which physically causes nothing, is
included yet dangerous and careless driving, which undoubtedly cause
death, are excluded. Speeding however is very profitable and that is not
a coincidence.
1(iii) Law enforcement is fine providing it is sensible, flawless law
and not inspired by, emotion, profiteers and ideology and is applied fairly.
1(iv) What is wrong with road safety? There is less death on the road
from all causes after some 300 billion driver miles a year, than from
accidents in the home, than from hanging and strangulation and even than
from self harm. There are other social killers too that far exceed road
death. So, unless all these other killers and deaths are unimportant,
the only conclusion is that road safety is a very profitable income
source for a lot of people. So there is combined vested interest profit
and anti driver green ideology energising this over focus on drivers and
road safety. We have established that as a matter of fact and are able
to name groups that enjoy charitable status yet have no CV in road
safety and driving but whose power and influence is working dangerously
to the detriment of major infrastructure and good road safety. To keep
aiming for impossible and unrealistic targets simply feeds an aggressive
and insatiable industry, and is not cost effective. Road safety is
neither benign nor costless.
1 (v) The Government can do no better than to look at existing laws and
seeing how they should be applied more frequently and reducing the
profit incentive for applying laws for offences that do not actually
cause accidents as is happening now. No law should be based on the
aspiration of vested interests, profit, ideology or unqualified nimbyism.
2(i) Enforcement agencies' capacity to enforce DfT policy on dangerous
and careless driving.
I do not know what DfT policy is but either there is evidence of
dangerous or careless driving or there isn’t. If there is good evidence
then the agencies already have the means to proceed as they always did.
Unfortunately the agencies themselves often prosecute for ‘speeding’ at
very high speeds instead of the correct offence of dangerous driving.
Rather like murder commences with assault, then ABH, then GBH first we
don’t charge a murderer with assault even though it still applies,
150MPH, 80MPH over the limit, cannot still be just ‘speeding’. Were
there to be a death as a result, the charge wouldn’t be death by
speeding but by dangerous driving.
2(ii) At the moment police are arresting drivers after an horrific
accident, on suspicion of dangerous driving, on no more than a fishing
exercise. Clearly anyone involved in such an accident is also in shock
and too traumatised to comment; police should not be treating drivers as
criminals on a routine basis. We are not dealing with burglars, robbers
and murderers who generally have a prepared story for their
pre-meditated conduct and unless found committing, are never arrested
until sufficient cause has been established. Much of this is due to the
word ‘accident’ deliberately being removed from the anti driver
vocabulary just so an aggressive approach to drivers can be maintained.
All authorities should look much more compassionately towards drivers
who at great cost are providing a vital service within an inherently
dangerous scenario. Most driving offences are totally unintentional.
Punishment isn’t a deterrent to an accident and unintentional act.
Simply removing the word ‘accident’ doesn’t alter the accidental aspect
but ensures that lots of money can be spent by the industry in a search
for someone to blame.
3(i) The introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving: how
these powers are being used, and whether alternatives to penalties
should be considered.
This was the most ill conceived idea that was introduced by the
Government in sacrificing justice for police convenience and against all
valid and educated advice.
Until Fixed penalty for careless driving was introduced, FP
historically had only ever been applied to totally objective and
absolute acts: The car was on a yellow line, it was stationary in a box,
it was driven in a bus lane, it was speeding, litter was dropped, dog
poo wasn’t cleared up and so on. This was a massive step change whereby
Fixed Penalty was allowed to be used subjectively and on mere opinion
and for one of the most serious driving offences there is. How on
earth, if the driving was not deemed as careless driving prior to FP,
does FP suddenly create the offence of careless driving? This was a step
change too far. Then was added the coercive offers to accept guilt, a
lesser fine and a course run for profit too. How can any of this be fair
or right for drivers? FP should only be appropriate for absolute and
objective conduct not subjective opinion where the right to fair trial
is then under a threat of a larger penalty. That this is a feature of
far lesser FP offences must be taken in the context that they are
objective and absolute whereas careless driving is pure subjective
opinion which should be tested at court no less..
3(ii) Courses. We have been unable to find any legal authority whereby
police, having commenced a legal process, can then halt judicial process
on payment of money to a third party other than a court. That many of
these courses are run by limited companies makes the coercion of them
even worse. We jail police officers who take money, under coercion, in
lieu of due process.
4(i) The impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of
cyclists and pedestrians.
Why are pedestrians linked with cyclists? Pedestrians are already
historically provided for in the infrastructure where they are separated
from motor traffic and the carriageway generally. When on the
carriageway, although given precedence, they are also exhorted not to
linger and where there is no footway, to walk opposite to traffic and
move to one side if needs be. Cyclists on the other hand are sharing
carriageway, with their backs to motor traffic and often impeding it. It
is incredible that any genuine authority interested in people safety
should miss that distinction.
4(ii) The definition of road cycling is as follows: To place oneself,
off the ground on a slender frame and flimsy wheels, travelling at
unnatural speed, and mixing, mingling, competing with and impeding large
moving essential machinery, operated by complete strangers of varying
skill and mental capacity. If it were not road cycling, most humans
would never place themselves in that position. It would be totally
irresponsible for any authority, no matter their cycling preferences, to
fail to acknowledge that reality and attempt to mitigate it at great
cost to infrastructure and indeed to cyclists.
4(iii) The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that
society must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We
cannot pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose
unneeded hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any
other crucial infrastructure. It is appalling that the Select Committee
listened to three pro cycling witnesses, two with financial vested
interests in their evidence and without asking ‘Why must we have
cyclists?’, awarded the Cycling Lobby £650,000,000 per annum when 99% of
the public know that cycling, which cannot sustain society, isn’t a
viable transport mode. How can we impose such a dangerous concept on
infrastructure then, having done so, talk about prosecution when it goes
wrong?
5(i) The deployment of people and technology in enforcing road traffic
policy.
There is less death on the road from all causes after some 300
billion driver miles a year, than from accidents in the home, than from
hanging and strangulation and even than from self harm. There are other
social killers too that far exceed road death. So unless all these other
killers and deaths are unimportant, the only conclusion is that road
safety is a very profitable source.
So are we talking about more expensive gadgets and people for a
non issue? Is there one road safety gadget, instrument, sign, camera,
meter, kiddie seat, airbag, crash helmet etc supplied at no more than
cost on the purely altruistic principle of saving lives and road safety?
Before going further, let’s start clawing back all the profit from
road safety and use that money to save more lives by focusing on genuine
accident causes, and in the NHS, Ambulance, Fire and Rescue and police
too. The Committee must start looking from outside the Road Safety and
Speeding Industry bubble.
6(i) The impact of devolution of road traffic enforcement activities to
local authorities
This has been a disaster for drivers and a major infrastructure.
All roads and streets belong to all drivers and so in reality are
national. Roads and prosecution policy based on the personal and
parochial aspirations of local political unqualified nimbysim is total
disaster for major infrastructure. Do we run railways and air travel
like this?
A national speed limit policy based on nothing more than nimbyist
parochialism is what we have now as well as blatant profiteering from
unrealistic speeding, parking, bus lane and yellow box policy all of
which could be amended when high volumes of offenders are clearly
showing a site fault. When councils are allowing a high offender rate,
they are allowing a site failure. This clearly shows that the objective
is income and not compliance.
Conclusion
7(i) Road safety has developed haphazardly and piecemeal for over
a century and contains many shibboleths that do not bear scrutiny; some
are highly dangerous and contradictory and most are no longer relevant
to modern road infrastructure. It needs a bottom up review based on the
principle that is relevant to modern road use and that road carriageways
are essential and crucial infrastructure on which all, including rail,
air and sea travel, depends
Keith Peat
Drivers’ Union
September 2015
Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
(Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
Should be interesting!
You can watch the evidence session live at 4.10pm here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb252945-8ad4-4eda-b3fa-4fe078055225
Summary Drivers Union. (They don't like cyclists!)
Road safety has developed haphazardly and piecemeal for over a
century and contains many shibboleths that do not bear scrutiny; some
are highly dangerous and contradictory and most are no longer relevant
to modern road infrastructure. It needs a bottom up review based on the
principle that road carriageways are essential and crucial
infrastructure on which all, including rail, air and see travel,
depends. Unnecessary hazards, liabilities and profiteers, should never
be imposed on any essential infrastructure
The Government's priorities and leadership role in improving road safety
through traffic law enforcement.
The focus on road safety and drivers already amounts to oppression of a
valuable resource, drivers. It is not cost effective if we are killing
more people by focusing on non accident causes at the expense of true
accident causes and infrastructure. Looking from outside the Road Safety
Industry bubble, many more lives could be saved off the road with the
multi £billions already being devoured by an insatiable industry too.
No law should be based on the aspiration of vested interests,
profit, ideology or unqualified nimbyism
Enforcement agencies' capacity to enforce DfT policy on dangerous and
careless driving.
We are not dealing with burglars, robbers and murderers who
generally have a prepared story for their pre-meditated conduct and
unless found committing, are never arrested until sufficient cause has
been established. All authorities should look much more compassionately
towards drivers who at great cost are providing a vital service within
an inherently dangerous scenario.
The introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving: how
these powers are being used, and whether alternatives to penalties
should be considered
This was the most ill conceived idea that was introduced by the
Government in the sacrifice of justice for police convenience and
against all valid and educated advice.
How on earth, if the driving was not deemed as careless driving prior to
FP, does FP suddenly create the offence of careless driving?
FP should only be appropriate for absolute and objective conduct not
subjective opinion where the right to fair trial is then under a threat
of a larger penalty. That this is a feature of far lesser FP offences
must be taken in the context that they are objective and absolute
whereas careless driving is pure subjective opinion which should be
tested at court and no less.
The impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of cyclists and
pedestrians.
Why are pedestrians linked with cyclists? Pedestrians are already
historically provided for in the infrastructure where they are separated
from motor traffic and the carriageway generally.
The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that society
must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We cannot
pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose unneeded
hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any other
crucial infrastructure.
The deployment of people and technology in enforcing road traffic policy.
Before going further, let’s start clawing back all the profit from
road safety and use that money to save more lives by focusing on genuine
accident causes, and in the NHS, Ambulance, Fire and Rescue and police
too. The Committee must start looking from outside the Road Safety and
Speeding Industry bubble.
The impact of devolution of road traffic enforcement activities to local
authorities.
This has been a disaster for drivers and a major infrastructure.
All roads and streets belong to all drivers and so in reality are
national. Roads and prosecution policy based on the personal and
parochial aspirations of local political unqualified nimbysim is total
disaster for major infrastructure. Do we run railways and air travel
like this?
Evidence
1(i) The Government's priorities and leadership role in improving road
safety through traffic law enforcement.
In my view the focus on road safety and drivers already amounts
to oppression of a valuable resource, drivers. It is not cost effective
if we are killing more people by focusing on non accident causes at the
expense of true accident causes and infrastructure. Looking from outside
the Road Safety Industry bubble, many more lives could be saved off the
road with the multi £billions already being devoured by an insatiable
industry too.
1(ii) An example of focusing on wrong causes can no better be
demonstrated but by looking at the Fatal 4 campaign where ‘speeding’,
simply to exceed a posted number which physically causes nothing, is
included yet dangerous and careless driving, which undoubtedly cause
death, are excluded. Speeding however is very profitable and that is not
a coincidence.
1(iii) Law enforcement is fine providing it is sensible, flawless law
and not inspired by, emotion, profiteers and ideology and is applied fairly.
1(iv) What is wrong with road safety? There is less death on the road
from all causes after some 300 billion driver miles a year, than from
accidents in the home, than from hanging and strangulation and even than
from self harm. There are other social killers too that far exceed road
death. So, unless all these other killers and deaths are unimportant,
the only conclusion is that road safety is a very profitable income
source for a lot of people. So there is combined vested interest profit
and anti driver green ideology energising this over focus on drivers and
road safety. We have established that as a matter of fact and are able
to name groups that enjoy charitable status yet have no CV in road
safety and driving but whose power and influence is working dangerously
to the detriment of major infrastructure and good road safety. To keep
aiming for impossible and unrealistic targets simply feeds an aggressive
and insatiable industry, and is not cost effective. Road safety is
neither benign nor costless.
1 (v) The Government can do no better than to look at existing laws and
seeing how they should be applied more frequently and reducing the
profit incentive for applying laws for offences that do not actually
cause accidents as is happening now. No law should be based on the
aspiration of vested interests, profit, ideology or unqualified nimbyism.
2(i) Enforcement agencies' capacity to enforce DfT policy on dangerous
and careless driving.
I do not know what DfT policy is but either there is evidence of
dangerous or careless driving or there isn’t. If there is good evidence
then the agencies already have the means to proceed as they always did.
Unfortunately the agencies themselves often prosecute for ‘speeding’ at
very high speeds instead of the correct offence of dangerous driving.
Rather like murder commences with assault, then ABH, then GBH first we
don’t charge a murderer with assault even though it still applies,
150MPH, 80MPH over the limit, cannot still be just ‘speeding’. Were
there to be a death as a result, the charge wouldn’t be death by
speeding but by dangerous driving.
2(ii) At the moment police are arresting drivers after an horrific
accident, on suspicion of dangerous driving, on no more than a fishing
exercise. Clearly anyone involved in such an accident is also in shock
and too traumatised to comment; police should not be treating drivers as
criminals on a routine basis. We are not dealing with burglars, robbers
and murderers who generally have a prepared story for their
pre-meditated conduct and unless found committing, are never arrested
until sufficient cause has been established. Much of this is due to the
word ‘accident’ deliberately being removed from the anti driver
vocabulary just so an aggressive approach to drivers can be maintained.
All authorities should look much more compassionately towards drivers
who at great cost are providing a vital service within an inherently
dangerous scenario. Most driving offences are totally unintentional.
Punishment isn’t a deterrent to an accident and unintentional act.
Simply removing the word ‘accident’ doesn’t alter the accidental aspect
but ensures that lots of money can be spent by the industry in a search
for someone to blame.
3(i) The introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving: how
these powers are being used, and whether alternatives to penalties
should be considered.
This was the most ill conceived idea that was introduced by the
Government in sacrificing justice for police convenience and against all
valid and educated advice.
Until Fixed penalty for careless driving was introduced, FP
historically had only ever been applied to totally objective and
absolute acts: The car was on a yellow line, it was stationary in a box,
it was driven in a bus lane, it was speeding, litter was dropped, dog
poo wasn’t cleared up and so on. This was a massive step change whereby
Fixed Penalty was allowed to be used subjectively and on mere opinion
and for one of the most serious driving offences there is. How on
earth, if the driving was not deemed as careless driving prior to FP,
does FP suddenly create the offence of careless driving? This was a step
change too far. Then was added the coercive offers to accept guilt, a
lesser fine and a course run for profit too. How can any of this be fair
or right for drivers? FP should only be appropriate for absolute and
objective conduct not subjective opinion where the right to fair trial
is then under a threat of a larger penalty. That this is a feature of
far lesser FP offences must be taken in the context that they are
objective and absolute whereas careless driving is pure subjective
opinion which should be tested at court no less..
3(ii) Courses. We have been unable to find any legal authority whereby
police, having commenced a legal process, can then halt judicial process
on payment of money to a third party other than a court. That many of
these courses are run by limited companies makes the coercion of them
even worse. We jail police officers who take money, under coercion, in
lieu of due process.
4(i) The impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of
cyclists and pedestrians.
Why are pedestrians linked with cyclists? Pedestrians are already
historically provided for in the infrastructure where they are separated
from motor traffic and the carriageway generally. When on the
carriageway, although given precedence, they are also exhorted not to
linger and where there is no footway, to walk opposite to traffic and
move to one side if needs be. Cyclists on the other hand are sharing
carriageway, with their backs to motor traffic and often impeding it. It
is incredible that any genuine authority interested in people safety
should miss that distinction.
4(ii) The definition of road cycling is as follows: To place oneself,
off the ground on a slender frame and flimsy wheels, travelling at
unnatural speed, and mixing, mingling, competing with and impeding large
moving essential machinery, operated by complete strangers of varying
skill and mental capacity. If it were not road cycling, most humans
would never place themselves in that position. It would be totally
irresponsible for any authority, no matter their cycling preferences, to
fail to acknowledge that reality and attempt to mitigate it at great
cost to infrastructure and indeed to cyclists.
4(iii) The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that
society must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We
cannot pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose
unneeded hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any
other crucial infrastructure. It is appalling that the Select Committee
listened to three pro cycling witnesses, two with financial vested
interests in their evidence and without asking ‘Why must we have
cyclists?’, awarded the Cycling Lobby £650,000,000 per annum when 99% of
the public know that cycling, which cannot sustain society, isn’t a
viable transport mode. How can we impose such a dangerous concept on
infrastructure then, having done so, talk about prosecution when it goes
wrong?
5(i) The deployment of people and technology in enforcing road traffic
policy.
There is less death on the road from all causes after some 300
billion driver miles a year, than from accidents in the home, than from
hanging and strangulation and even than from self harm. There are other
social killers too that far exceed road death. So unless all these other
killers and deaths are unimportant, the only conclusion is that road
safety is a very profitable source.
So are we talking about more expensive gadgets and people for a
non issue? Is there one road safety gadget, instrument, sign, camera,
meter, kiddie seat, airbag, crash helmet etc supplied at no more than
cost on the purely altruistic principle of saving lives and road safety?
Before going further, let’s start clawing back all the profit from
road safety and use that money to save more lives by focusing on genuine
accident causes, and in the NHS, Ambulance, Fire and Rescue and police
too. The Committee must start looking from outside the Road Safety and
Speeding Industry bubble.
6(i) The impact of devolution of road traffic enforcement activities to
local authorities
This has been a disaster for drivers and a major infrastructure.
All roads and streets belong to all drivers and so in reality are
national. Roads and prosecution policy based on the personal and
parochial aspirations of local political unqualified nimbysim is total
disaster for major infrastructure. Do we run railways and air travel
like this?
A national speed limit policy based on nothing more than nimbyist
parochialism is what we have now as well as blatant profiteering from
unrealistic speeding, parking, bus lane and yellow box policy all of
which could be amended when high volumes of offenders are clearly
showing a site fault. When councils are allowing a high offender rate,
they are allowing a site failure. This clearly shows that the objective
is income and not compliance.
Conclusion
7(i) Road safety has developed haphazardly and piecemeal for over
a century and contains many shibboleths that do not bear scrutiny; some
are highly dangerous and contradictory and most are no longer relevant
to modern road infrastructure. It needs a bottom up review based on the
principle that is relevant to modern road use and that road carriageways
are essential and crucial infrastructure on which all, including rail,
air and sea travel, depends
Keith Peat
Drivers’ Union
September 2015
John Smith
Nov 23, 2015, 6:46:03 AM11/23/15
to
colwyn <gudd...@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
A complete and _utter_ waste of time.
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
Psychopaths' hatred of cyclists is not based on reason, logic, behaviour,
facts or statistics. It is an unreasonable, illogical, emotional hatred of
a minority outgroup. As such, like racism, misandry, anti-Semitism and
all other forms of bigotry, there is only one possible cure for it.
Violence.
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)
Alycidon
Nov 23, 2015, 8:50:41 AM11/23/15
to
On Monday, 23 November 2015 11:22:49 UTC, colwyn wrote:
>
> Keith Peat
> Drivers' Union
> September 2015
I think Mr Peat (dead cyclist lover) has bigger things on his mind at the moment.
>
> Keith Peat
> Drivers' Union
> September 2015
QUOTE:
"Crippling back diagnosed as cancer Thursday last week."
https://twitter.com/BogTrotter1
http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!cycling-death-2015/c1c5f
TMS320
Nov 23, 2015, 10:36:45 AM11/23/15
to
"David Hume" <David...@example.com> wrote in
>> The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that society
>> must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We cannot
>> pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose unneeded
>> hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any other
>> crucial infrastructure.
>
> Is he classing cyclists as drivers?
Must be. I am a licenced driver when I ride a bicycle.
> Or has he just lost his mind.
Just another of those loony tunes that thinks the queue he is trapped in is
the fault of a person on a bicycle.
>> The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that society
>> must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers. We cannot
>> pretend to be concerned with good road safety then impose unneeded
>> hazards in the road in a way that would not be imposed on any other
>> crucial infrastructure.
>
Must be. I am a licenced driver when I ride a bicycle.
> Or has he just lost his mind.
Just another of those loony tunes that thinks the queue he is trapped in is
the fault of a person on a bicycle.
Alycidon
Nov 23, 2015, 10:52:01 AM11/23/15
to
"Angry widdow (sic) of self imposed unnecesary (sic) road hazard gets driver jailed for 2 years as revenge for an accident http://goo.gl/alerts/PK4k "
Ian Smith
Nov 23, 2015, 12:58:41 PM11/23/15
to
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:21:15 +0000, colwyn <gudd...@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
> Summary Drivers Union. (They don't like cyclists!)
Wow. Who would have thought that the ABD was the sane end of the
spectrum?
I think the best bit is probably that cyclists are "travelling at
unnatural speed" (wouldn't surprise me if the female ones wearing
trousers scare the horses too).
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Alycidon
Nov 23, 2015, 1:08:41 PM11/23/15
to
http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!the-team/c24vv
David Lang
Nov 23, 2015, 2:16:54 PM11/23/15
to
On 23/11/2015 11:21, colwyn wrote:
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
Nobody is, cyclists only account for 1% of journeys, so they are an
> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
insignificant minority.
David Lang
Nov 23, 2015, 2:18:42 PM11/23/15
to
On 23/11/2015 11:45, John Smith wrote:
> colwyn <gudd...@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
>> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
>> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
>> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
> A complete and _utter_ waste of time.
>
> Psychopaths' hatred of cyclists is not based on reason, logic, behaviour,
> facts or statistics. It is an unreasonable, illogical, emotional hatred of
> a minority outgroup.
Strange that its a universal hatred then.
> colwyn <gudd...@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
>> Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
>> (Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
>> law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
> A complete and _utter_ waste of time.
>
> Psychopaths' hatred of cyclists is not based on reason, logic, behaviour,
> facts or statistics. It is an unreasonable, illogical, emotional hatred of
> a minority outgroup.
> As such, like racism, misandry, anti-Semitism and
> all other forms of bigotry, there is only one possible cure for it.
>
> Violence.
>
Judith
Nov 24, 2015, 2:44:01 AM11/24/15
to
Judith
Nov 24, 2015, 2:47:57 AM11/24/15
to
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:30:36 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:50:39
>I couldn't have happened to a better creature.
You are a nasty bastard.
I think as well as having your physical disability you have developed a sever
mental one.
Shall we all laugh at your disability? Still in the wheel chair are you? I
bet you were involved in a motoring accident. Correct?
How could I have guessed?
>Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:50:39
You are a nasty bastard.
I think as well as having your physical disability you have developed a sever
mental one.
Shall we all laugh at your disability? Still in the wheel chair are you? I
bet you were involved in a motoring accident. Correct?
How could I have guessed?
Judith
Nov 24, 2015, 3:01:06 AM11/24/15
to
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:51:59 -0800 (PST), Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The nasty piece of work (Keith Peat) also wrote this about a cyclist killed by a dangerous driver.
>
>"Angry widdow (sic) of self imposed unnecesary (sic) road hazard gets driver jailed for 2 years as revenge for an accident http://goo.gl/alerts/PK4k "
Is this the Keith Peat you are talking about:
Motor engineer by trade, served 32 years in London Police. Class 1 advance
police driver & motorcyclist. A keen cyclist still cycling at 75. Have dealt
with accidents. Have prosecuted them. Have compiled and provided accident
stats. Abstract road accident reports to the legal profession. Three
Commissioner's Commendations (One on the instigation of the Governor of the
Bank of England) Royal Humane Society Award for resuscitation in life
threatening circumstances and a member of MENSA.
I couldn't find your quoted text anywhere: care to point out where he said what
you claim. Or did you just make it up?
I even Googled for his comments:
No results found for "Andrew Charlton" "Keith Peat"
Anyway I've sent him a copy of your and Anchor's posts about him - just in case
he hasn't seen them.
<snip>
>The nasty piece of work (Keith Peat) also wrote this about a cyclist killed by a dangerous driver.
>
>"Angry widdow (sic) of self imposed unnecesary (sic) road hazard gets driver jailed for 2 years as revenge for an accident http://goo.gl/alerts/PK4k "
Motor engineer by trade, served 32 years in London Police. Class 1 advance
police driver & motorcyclist. A keen cyclist still cycling at 75. Have dealt
with accidents. Have prosecuted them. Have compiled and provided accident
stats. Abstract road accident reports to the legal profession. Three
Commissioner's Commendations (One on the instigation of the Governor of the
Bank of England) Royal Humane Society Award for resuscitation in life
threatening circumstances and a member of MENSA.
I couldn't find your quoted text anywhere: care to point out where he said what
you claim. Or did you just make it up?
I even Googled for his comments:
No results found for "Andrew Charlton" "Keith Peat"
Anyway I've sent him a copy of your and Anchor's posts about him - just in case
he hasn't seen them.
JNugent
Nov 24, 2015, 6:45:08 AM11/24/15
to
On 24/11/2015 05:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com>:
As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of
John Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
> Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com>:
> I couldn't have happened to a better creature.
Ah... so you are in fact a cancer?
As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of
John Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
John Smith
Nov 24, 2015, 8:09:33 AM11/24/15
to
JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
other cyclists.
In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
could get away with it.
And right now, he does.
As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel. Or maybe you don't believe
that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
it, life-ending).
The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen, and that he can
safely be swept aside, because he doesn't matter. This of course is
the exact opposite of the position in law: pedestrians and cyclists use the
public highway by right, and their rights take precedence over those of
psychopaths.
And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
road-going food chain.
You can consider yourself educated now, son.
JNugent
Nov 24, 2015, 8:16:12 AM11/24/15
to
On 24/11/2015 13:08, John Smith wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
Except when you wish cancer on people, you mean?
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
> In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
> people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
> vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
> could get away with it.
> And right now, he does.
> As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel.
your several aliases, you *claim* it to be the case. But that is all I
or anyone else can know.
> Or maybe you don't believe
> that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
Neither does it matter all that much (to me) in any case.
> But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
> devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
> it, life-ending).
> The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
> in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen, and that he can
> safely be swept aside, because he doesn't matter. This of course is
> the exact opposite of the position in law: pedestrians and cyclists use the
> public highway by right, and their rights take precedence over those of
> psychopaths.
> And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
> quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
> that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
> will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
> road-going food chain.
> You can consider yourself educated now, son.
Fascinating.
John Smith
Nov 24, 2015, 8:22:03 AM11/24/15
to
JNugent
Nov 24, 2015, 8:31:22 AM11/24/15
to
John Smith
Nov 24, 2015, 8:52:03 AM11/24/15
to
JNugent
Nov 24, 2015, 10:18:48 AM11/24/15
to
On 24/11/2015 13:51, John Smith wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I didn't tell you what I see.
> You didn't have to.
Quite. And I didn't.
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I didn't tell you what I see.
> You didn't have to.
David Lang
Nov 24, 2015, 2:13:25 PM11/24/15
to
On 24/11/2015 13:08, John Smith wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
>
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
>
> In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
> people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
> vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
> could get away with it.
>
> And right now, he does.
Clearly not enough.
>
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
>
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
>
> In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
> people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
> vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
> could get away with it.
>
> And right now, he does.
>
> As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel. Or maybe you don't believe
> that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
>
> But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
> devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
> it, life-ending).
>
> The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
> in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen,
True, they are.
> As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel. Or maybe you don't believe
> that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
>
> But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
> devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
> it, life-ending).
>
> The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
> in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen,
> and that he can
> safely be swept aside, because he doesn't matter. This of course is
> the exact opposite of the position in law: pedestrians and cyclists use the
> public highway by right, and their rights take precedence over those of
> psychopaths.
>
> And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
> quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
> that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
> will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
> road-going food chain.
99% of journeys by motor vehicle.
> And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
> quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
> that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
> will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
> road-going food chain.
1% by push bike.
£46 billion paid by motorists.
SFA paid by cyclists.
>
> You can consider yourself educated now, son.
>
When are you going to try education?
> You can consider yourself educated now, son.
>
Judith
Nov 26, 2015, 6:03:31 PM11/26/15
to
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:21:15 +0000, colwyn <gudd...@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
>For those of you interested in cyclists getting justice on the road,
>Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
>(Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
>law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
>Should be interesting!
>
>You can watch the evidence session live at 4.10pm here:
>http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb252945-8ad4-4eda-b3fa-4fe078055225
>
>
>Summary Drivers Union. (They don't like cyclists!)
>Roger Geffen, CTC’s Policy Director be giving evidence this afternoon
>(Monday) to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on traffic
>law enforcement. PARLIAMENT TODAY
>
>Should be interesting!
>
>You can watch the evidence session live at 4.10pm here:
>http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb252945-8ad4-4eda-b3fa-4fe078055225
>
>
>Summary Drivers Union. (They don't like cyclists!)
>The fact is that there are only two classes of road user that society
>must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers.
Excellent: quite right.
>must have to subsist and they are pedestrians and drivers.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 27, 2015, 12:47:26 PM11/27/15
to
On 24/11/2015 13:08, John Smith wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
>
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
Cyclists are evil.
>
>> As well as being an extraordinarily-vile creature (the full equal of John
>> Smith/Yitzhak/Brian) who wishes obscene illnesses upon people, that is.
>
> You see, that's the problem, John/Jeremy/Jackarse .. I don't wish obscene
> illnesses on anyone. Indeed, as a cyclist, I incarnate good, as do all
> other cyclists.
>
> In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
> people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
> vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
> could get away with it.
>
> And right now, he does.
>
> As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel. Or maybe you don't believe
> that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
>
> But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
> devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
> it, life-ending).
>
> The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
> in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen,
Because they are.
> In the blue corner, however, we have the Orc - or the 'car driver' as
> people often call him. He is a selfish, inconsiderate, aggressive,
> vicious cunt, and he would chase every other vehicle off the road if he
> could get away with it.
>
> And right now, he does.
>
> As you know, I am Jewish and I live in Israel. Or maybe you don't believe
> that, either. No matter. Je m'en branle, as we say in French.
>
> But I believe, and have always believed that defensive violence should be
> devastating, overwhelming and life-changing (or, if the situation merits
> it, life-ending).
>
> The behaviour of the average psychopath in the UK at the moment (and here
> in Israel) is that the cyclist is a second-class citizen,
> and that he can
> safely be swept aside, because he doesn't matter.
>This of course is
> the exact opposite of the position in law: pedestrians and cyclists use the
> public highway by right, and their rights take precedence over those of
> psychopaths.
Middlesbrough and Stockton councils & Highways England yet?
>
> And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
> quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
> that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
> will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
> road-going food chain.
Ooooh! Got your handbag ready?
> And whilst the ideal situation is for 'everyone to get on', the psychopath
> quite evidently has no intention of letting this happen. His violence (for
> that is what it is) must be met with violence. This is the only way he
> will possibly learn that his rightful place is at the bottom of the
> road-going food chain.
>
> You can consider yourself educated now, son.
>
You should try education yourself one day.
> You can consider yourself educated now, son.
>
--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.
Alycidon
Nov 27, 2015, 12:51:09 PM11/27/15
to
On Monday, 23 November 2015 13:50:41 UTC, Alycidon wrote:
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 11:22:49 UTC, colwyn wrote:
>
> >
> > Keith Peat
> > Drivers' Union
> > September 2015
>
> I think Mr Peat (dead cyclist lover) has bigger things on his mind at the moment.
>
> QUOTE:
> "Crippling back diagnosed as cancer Thursday last week."
Back at home now after four bouts of radio + chemo.
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 11:22:49 UTC, colwyn wrote:
>
> >
> > Keith Peat
> > Drivers' Union
> > September 2015
>
> I think Mr Peat (dead cyclist lover) has bigger things on his mind at the moment.
>
> QUOTE:
> "Crippling back diagnosed as cancer Thursday last week."
https://twitter.com/BogTrotter1
JNugent
Nov 27, 2015, 3:37:19 PM11/27/15
to
Well, most of us.
0 new messages