From time to time we like to pass on to you some of the more interesting bits from “On The Road”, the newsletter of the Association of British Drivers. Sadly we suspect that the ABD is becoming a bit more mainstream and serious lately, and a lot less grumpy, but it does still throw up the odd priceless little nugget. Here are two or three of the most recent ...
Professor Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist. In the wake of the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, he came up with the following fascinating insight:
“Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash, in just four days, negated every single effort you've made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know, it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you've accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's The Green Revolution science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10 light bulbs.
Well, all of those things you've done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - every day. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but - not to be outdone - I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Pinatubo – Al Gore's 'orrid ruin (“Orodruin” - intellectual joke, get it?)
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but, furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Yet your government continues to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus man-made climate change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' any more, but just 'Climate Change'. Know why? It's because the planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?”
We were rather puzzled by the implications of this report ...
Local Authorities will have to publish detailed information about speed cameras from April. Data requirements will include accident rates at camera sites, vehicle speeds and the number of motorists prosecuted or offered training after offences recorded by the cameras. The DfT is working with the police, local authorities and the Highways Agency on what data should be published and how.
Jolly good thing, you would have thought. But what's this about “working with the police, local authorities and the Highways Agency on what data should be published ...”? What's to decide? They have to tell us accident rates at camera sites, vehicle speeds and the number of motorists prosecuted or offered training after offences recorded by the cameras. The government said so.
Or could it be ...? Surely they couldn't ...? You don't suppose, do you, that they're planning to cherry-pick the information so as not to release anything that might suggest speed cameras aren't necessary?
Well, actually that's exactly what we do suppose. It's happened before, after all. The government says something has to happen, and civil services, local authorities and other organisations just ignore it. The coalition government told us that local authorities were paying their top officers too much, but how many of those officers have been sacked? None that we've heard of. The government said that there should be a drastic pruning of management and bureaucracy in the NHS, and what's happened? Nothing, that's what. It'll be the same with the speed cameras; the agencies who stand to profit from them will just quietly dig their heels in, and there'll be nothing we or the government can do about it.
A driver fined for flashing his headlights to warn motorists of a police speed camera has lost an appeal against his conviction. Michael Thompson, 64, was pulled over by officers in Grimsby last July after warning several oncoming cars. He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £250 costs after being found guilty in January of obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties. He appeared at Grimsby Crown Court where a judge dismissed his appeal bid.
Speaking after his conviction by Grimsby magistrates, he said: "I believe that speed traps cause vehicles to brake harshly at times. I stand by what I did. What I did was right and lawful. It's not about the expense, it's about the truth. All of this is rough justice and it's not right."
Personally we often do flash other drivers to warn them of camera vans, and will continue to do so. We'd be interested to know how the police and the courts see the rationale for Mr.Thompson's conviction. It's fairly clear that they are not interested in road safety, because we're always being told that a driver who slows down is a safer driver, whatever the reason he did it. Actually, slower drivers are not statistically safer at all. There's been a recent study in the U.S. which showed that where speed limits are reduced, accident rates rise, and where speeds are increased there's a corresponding fall in accidents. This is something we have written about several times in the past – see here, for instance.
No, what worries the police and the courts is that if there are speeding drivers to be curbed, it should be them who do it. Just like if your house is burgled they'd much rather you didn't try to detain the villain yourself, or if someone tries to mug you in the street you mustn't fight back or it'll be you that ends up in the dock. David Cameron recently said that he wants to strengthen the idea of the Englishman and his castle, but see above about how effective he's likely to be.
I wonder what the official attitude would be if I flashed a driver to warn him that there was an obstruction round the corner and he ought to slow down before he ploughs into it? Would they rather I just stuck my head up my arse and let him smash up, so they could charge him with careless driving?
My guess is yes, they would.
According to official figures nearly 200 pedestrians over the age of 70 were killed on Britain’s roads in 2008. A hell of a lot of these were trying to cross the road and didn't make it – see this article in the Daily Telegraph, for instance.
And yet as long ago as 2009 Boris Johnson was talking about making pensioners scurry across more quickly in order to keep the traffic moving. A Transport for London trial reduced the green man time at a number of junctions from ten to six seconds (the DfT guideline). The trial increased vehicle throughput by 6.5% with, they claim, no impact on safety.
Our curiosity was piqued by the mention of a DfT guideline. Do they seriously think that six seconds is enough time for a pensioner to cross the road? We'd be pushed to do it ourselves in that time, and we're pretty fit. What about some old dear with her Zimmer frame? Could she do it in six? Or a young mother pushing a pram, or leading a toddler by the hand?
Are these people completely MAD, or just plain stupid?
Don't answer that. I think we know ....
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2011 The GOS