The Antidote to BRAKE

[vieuxtigre]

Wasn't sure whether to post this as a reply on the B vs AD thread or start a new one. Decided on the latter. Like many on here and ADUK I'm worried, nay frightened, by some of the things BRAKE advocate, and especially so at the thought that they're lobbying politicians for those things. However, they're not the only lobbying organisation. ABD - The Alliance (previously Association) of British Drivers seems to be a lobbying organisation with rather more sense. Having found their website (www.abd.org.uk, I beileve) I read their manifesto, covering such matters as setting of speed limits, driving standards, road traffic law enforcement and found myself shouting "yes, yes, yes" at the computer screen as I read many of their policies. In short, they seem to advocate what I and, I suspect, many others on here would wish to see done in these areas. Take a look. What's more, looking at their patrons, I see that the first is not only an MP, but one of us, i.e. a gentleman with a number of higher-level driving qualifications to his name and an obvious enthusiast. So, I'm somewhat relieved that there's at least someone out there prepared to try to stop the lunatics before they take over the asylum completely. I plan to join ABD as soon as possible. I suggest others on here may wish to do otherwise if they haven't already. It seems to me they probably need all the help they can get. I'd be very interested to hear what others on here think when they've read ABD's mainfesto.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I've looked at them in the past and the main impression I received was of a "how to weasel out of NIPs" site, also some rather extremist lobbying points of view that I didn't care to be associated with. YMMV.

[akirk]

I think that there is plenty to support, but also plenty which makes me stop and think - Unfortunately any pressure group has a danger of becoming a platform for the views of a small group - if you read their manifesto there are some good ideas, some logical ideas, and some where they need perhaps a little more common sense! Maybe there is a space int he market for a more professional / logical / clear thinking group?

and I don't like badly designed websites

Alasdair

[martine]

They also have a tendency to push a viewpoint denying climate change...almost like it's one of the ABD senior team's personal view and has little relevance to motoring issues.

They sometimes talk a lot of sense and other times are quite extreme and irrelevant...in my view.

[Carbon Based]

I find them each as unpalatably extremist as each other - to the extent that while both may have some valid points, neither can put them across with any degree of engagment.

[jont-]

I find them each as unpalatably extremist as each other - to the extent that while both may have some valid points, neither can put them across with any degree of engagment.

Unfortunately that seems to be the modern way to gain press coverage. Nobody likes a well-reasoned, well-evidenced argument; emotional rhetoric seems to carry far more sway

[Revian]

With Godfrey Bloom as a patron.... .?? And (on the same page) they would like to recruit (other) comedians...

Sharing some ideas or values isn't enough.

"If you sup with the devil you'll need a long spoon"

Ian

[vieuxtigre]

Ok I take the point about Bloom; I hadn't done my research. So they have a joker. I still think much of what they propose on testing, training and law enforcement makes sense. I've also been re-reading John Lyon's proposals for future training and testing in his book Advanced Driving. In principle they're not poles apart in terms of underlying idealogy. I agree no organisation is perfect and in an idael world we wouldn't need lobbying organisations. However, as a road user I just find BRAKE really scary and am seriously concerned that they and their ideas are actually heeded by politicians and I think someone, however imperfect, needs to counterbalance that, length of metaphorical spoon notwithstanding.

[Carbon Based]

...emotional rhetoric seems to carry far more sway

Agreed, but that only works in one direction. If you are saving kittens or thinking of the children, your argument can be as paper thin as it is possible to be - the emotion makes up for any lack of reason. Multiply that by a factor of, lets say, 5 simply by being first. Brake/20plenty/50forNSL are ahead on both counts.

If you want to oppose them you have to have an even greater appeal to their own supporters, and, I would suggest, avoid antagonising them with such clearly visible angst. Keep it calm, collected and with a subtlety that enables every local councillor up and down the country to say at their next meeting "actually, we may have over done it with the attempts at traffic calming because of [insert your reasoned argument here]" and not loose face.

[jont-]

If you want to oppose them you have to have an even greater appeal to their own supporters, and, I would suggest, avoid antagonising them with such clearly visible angst. Keep it calm, collected and with a subtlety that enables every local councillor up and down the country to say at their next meeting "actually, we may have over done it with the attempts at traffic calming because of [insert your reasoned argument here]" and not loose face.

I've tried that. Including pointing councillors at the bloody DfT guidelines that they are supposed to be implement (and gives them someone else to blame too ) It doesn't work