We have often said that everyone should belong to the Association of British Drivers. I mean, almost all of us are drivers, right? And the majority of visitors to this site are British? Where's the problem?
We look forward every quarter to receiving their excellent magazine "On The Road". Here are one or two snippets from the recent edition that appealed to us …
"The number of cyclists injured in England has increased by 23.8% in the past five years; 13,368 cyclists were admitted to hospital in 2006/7, up from 10,795 in 2002/3."
Terrible figures, certainly. But hold on, before anyone gets hot under the collar as usual about motorists ignoring cyclists, there's a little sting in the tail: of those 13 thousand, over 9 thousand were injured in incidents involving no other vehicles, and 518 hit stationary objects. A further 208 cyclists collided with other riders and 89 crashed into people or animals.
So far no one has called for cyclists to be forced to take a test before being let loose on the roads. Why is that, we wonder?
A brilliant example of government double-think recently. Faced with increasing complaints about overcrowded trains, they have decided to act: the DfT has rewritten the guidelines on the acceptable number of people standing in a carriage. Formerly, it was considered acceptable to have 10 people standing for every 100 seats but under new guidelines it's OK to have 30 standing passengers per 100 seats. Train companies will be able to pack in more passengers without their services being labelled 'overcrowded'.
So, train passengers, you no longer have anything to complain about, have you?
An ambulance was clamped outside London's Royal Free Hospital while the driver helped a seriously ill patient inside. The driver had left the ambulance for just one minute; when she returned, the clamp was being applied. The warden said he'd remove the clamp after payment of a fine of over £200. The private clamping firm involved defended the decision.
Meanwhile the DVLA is still selling names and addresses of motorists to wheel-clamping firms without carrying out checks on their background and credentials, despite a pledge by ministers to introduce tougher controls.
Three years ago, the Government said more would be done to prevent data on car owners falling into the hands of rogue parking firms. I expect they were too busy sorting out the overcrowded trains.
Councillors in Swindon have voted to stop funding the town's speed cameras. The town's borough council is to be the first in England to withdraw funding for fixed cameras. The revenue from fines generated by the cameras goes to the government, but the Conservative-led borough council pays £320,000 a year to maintain them.
Councillors say new measures are needed as road deaths and injuries have begun to rise, but police claim the cameras have helped cut accidents. Well, they would, I suppose, as they are one of the partners in the scamera partnership and don't want to lose £320,000 a year.
The nine-member council cabinet voted unanimously in favour of withdrawing from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership. Councillors decided the £320,000 it puts into the partnership would be better spent on other safety measures like warning signs and street lighting. They said the number of people killed or seriously injured on Swindon's roads had begun to rise in the last two years and new strategies were needed. Peter Greenhalgh, the Tory councillor who proposed the idea, claims the current road safety policy isn't working. "The DfT annual results show that nationally only 6% of accidents are caused by people breaking speed limits yet almost 100% of the government's road safety money is being invested in speed cameras," he said.
If the government are interested, we can offer a solution to this embarrassment. Just do what you did with the overcrowded trains: alter the definition of "speed" to fit your own prejudices. For instance, if you described "speed" as "anything over walking pace" you'd be home and dry. Can't think why no one at the DfT has thought of it.
After massive defeats in Edinburgh and Manchester, you'd hope that any ambitions to introduce road pricing in the UK have been killed off for now. Not so; our masters are rarely inclined to let a little thing like democracy stop them doing what they want, and 15 UK councils are implicated in an EU-funded organisation which advocates underhand and undemocratic means to railroad through road pricing schemes in the face of massive public opposition.
CURACAO ("Coordination of urban road-user charging organizational issues") states that its aim is "to create the conditions for reaching the tipping point for the widespread adoption of road pricing in European Urban Cities".
CURACAO names Bristol City Council as one of its key partners, along with Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Tyne and Wear, Durham, Cambridge, Cardiff, Plymouth, Shropshire, Belfast and Transport for London. CURACAO advises councils to use various tricks to push through road pricing schemes, including …
• Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place ...
• False 'trial periods' to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention …
• Avoiding referenda at all costs …
• Using a psychological trick called "dissonance theory" to make people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that "resistance is futile".
CURACAO labels opposition to road pricing as 'irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility'.
They got the last bit right, at least. Anyone who tries to charge me for using a road I've already paid for fifteen times over is liable to find themselves on the sharp end of a ton and a half of elderly Mercedes.
Currently, you have the right to service and repair your vehicle if you want, but in 2010 that right could be removed according to an organization called "Right to Repair". Take a look at their website.
And talking of officials refusing to take any notice of what real people think, the West Yorkshire scamera partnership distinguished itself recently. They publish an electronic newsletter called ScaN, and recently carried the following message: "False emails poured into the website; as a result, the Have Your Say opinion poll appeared not to provide an accurate reflection of what 'real' people really thought."
Or to put it another way, people had their say all right, but they said the wrong thing!
A similar thing happened three or four years ago in Suffolk, where The GOS lives. Suffolk County Council invited people to express their opinions about the blanket speed limits they'd imposed on the A140 trunk road. When the majority of responses opposed the scheme, the County Council dismissed them as being from "cranks" and "boy racers". It's great, democracy, isn't it? It gives people the illusion of power without the responsibility of actually having any.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite