Sunday 21 April 2024

The Back-story behind Anti-Car Policies in the UK, Part Six: Summary and Diagnosis

This is the last in a set of six essays. In which, I tell the story behind the anti-car policies, which have so plagued the people of the UK for more than 30 years, and are now intensifying almost day by day. I have tried to make this essay as stand-alone as I can, so my readers can appreciate it in isolation, without having to plough through all the detail in the first five.

It is undeniable that the dishonesty, nastiness and vehemence of those seeking to force us out of our cars have risen to fever pitch. And this is happening everywhere, not just in the UK. For example, just a few days ago, I heard that the Germans were talking about “comprehensive and indefinite driving bans on Saturdays and Sundays.” [[1]]. And the idea is now being floated of banning diesel engined cars, entirely and soon: [[2]].

But there is an old saw: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” Not just the anti-car fanatics, but the green political fanatics as a whole, have gone mad. And their madness seems to be ever-rising. Something, I feel, has got to give.

The back-story

I shall begin by summarizing, very briefly, what I discovered while writing each of the five earlier essays.

In the first essay [[3]], I reviewed all the historical air pollution episodes I could find, which had proven, significant negative health impacts. I concluded: “The main diagnosis in the government’s report on the London Smog of 1952, that both particulate matter and sulphates are necessary in quantity in order to produce bad health effects, seems to have been borne out by the evidence.”

In the second essay [[4]], I told the back-story behind the green and anti-car policies from their first stirrings in the early 1970s, up until 2008. I cut off at 2008 because, the following year, a UK government report provided apparent scientific justification for new initiatives to reduce particulate matter pollution.

In the third essay [[5]], I reviewed the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) report of 2009, which set out to estimate the risk coefficients to be used in the UK to assess the mortality effects of PM2.5 [particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns].

This was my conclusion. “This report was not an honest attempt to inform policy assessments by quantifying the risks arising from PM2.5 pollution in the UK. It was far more like an exercise in creating ‘evidence’ to suit previously determined policies. It was simply an excuse – a 180+ page excuse – for falling into line behind the WHO’s position on the matter. It was not science, but politics.”

The fourth essay, [[6]], follows the anti-car back-story from 2009 up to 2022. And in the fifth essay, [[7]], I brought the back-story up to date. In the latter, I concentrated particularly on the local transport plan and “vision zero” road safety campaign being implemented by Surrey County Council. To distil the essence of what the county council are doing here: “If it moves, tax it, and force it to go slower. When it doesn’t move, slap a parking charge notice on it.”

To summarize these two essays as a whole: The future the car-haters want for us is George Orwell’s “boot stamping on a human face – forever.” Moreover, they want to push us into that future by any means they possibly can, including lies, deception and foul play.

The evidence

Next, I will “slice and dice” what I found when putting together the first five essays, in an attempt to build a coherent picture of where we stand today.

Air pollution episodes of the past

The 1953 government report, which assessed the Great London Smog of 1952, was very clear that for a smog to cause bad health effects, both particulate matter (PM) and sulphates are necessary in quantity. When I reviewed all the seriously harmful smogs I could find, which have occurred in temperate climates since, I found nothing that contradicted this conclusion.

Most of the harmful smogs have extended over relatively small areas. They generally occur in early winter. And they require windless conditions, and very often a temperature inversion.

There is another kind of harmful air pollution episode, hazes. These cover far larger areas than smogs. But they occur only in the warm climates of, and in connection with the agricultural practices of, south and south-east Asia. So, they would not be relevant to the UK.

It is also worth noting that, apart from one in north-east China – which had the characteristics of a haze as much as a smog, including concurrent burning of crop waste in farmers’ fields – there have been no seriously harmful smogs in temperate climates since the early 1970s. So, might the worst of the air pollution problems have been, in reality, already solved in Western countries fully 50 years ago?

Particulate matter and sulphates have been, and in some places still are, produced together in quantity mainly by three processes. First, industrial and transport emissions. Second, the burning of stubble. Third, the burning of vegetation with a high sulphur content. The second and third of these processes appear to be the causes of the Asian hazes.

In the UK, stubble burning has been in effect banned since 1993. And the sulphur content of coal has been reduced enormously since the 1950s. There used also to be significant emissions of sulphur compounds from road transport. But these have been hugely reduced since the introduction in 2000 of ultra-low sulphur diesel. So, cars are not a big contributor to sulphur dioxide pollution today.

Government interventions

There have been some government policy interventions on air pollution, which have demonstrably improved health outcomes. Among these were the banning of high-sulphur coal in Dublin. But in all these successful interventions, the main pollutant reduced has been sulphur dioxide.

No other interventions, and in particular no interventions impacting on road traffic, have yet been shown to have had any significant positive effect on health. A 2011 report found no clear effect of the London congestion charging scheme on air pollution levels. A 2018 paper came up with no hard evidence of any health improvements due to the London LEZ (Low Emissions Zone for commercial vehicles). And a 2021 study found that the London ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone) brought about only small improvements in air quality in the first nine months of its operation. So, any health benefits could only have been minuscule.

It is notable that in both the last two cases, anti-car political forces tried to get the scientific conclusions changed or suppressed.

Cultural perversions

Next, I will look at the cultural perversions, to which the green extremists, including those that want to force us out of our cars, have subjected us in the last 40 years or so.

The precautionary principle

Firstly, there is the perversion of the precautionary principle. The original principle, “Look before you leap,” discourages action unless and until you are fairly sure the consequences will be nett positive. An alternative form is “First, do no harm,” closely related to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. But this principle has been perverted and subverted.

This perversion was begun by the United Nations in 1992, with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It was carried on by activists, with the support of corporate interests, in the Wingspread Statement of 1998. And it was completed in 2002 by the UK’s “Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment.”

The principle, as applied by its proponents – including the EU, the UN and its World Health Organization (WHO), and the UK government – has been all but inverted. It has become, in effect: “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” You can see this in, for example, the WHO’s bid to take over global control of pandemic strategies.

This perverted precautionary principle is very nasty to live under. For it violates our human rights in at least three ways. One, it unjustly inverts the burden of proof. Two, it denies the presumption of innocence. Three, it unfairly requires the accused (that’s us) to prove a negative. Moreover, it encourages government to take action against any risk, actual or potential, however small and however unproven the risk may be.

Creeping targets and limits

Secondly, there is the culture of arbitrary, collective, ever tightening targets and limits. This was conceived by the European political élites in the 1980s. It was designed to be applied to all kinds of air pollution, as well as to CO2 emissions. Since then, it has been taken on eagerly, both by the United Nations and its World Health Organization (WHO), and by UK governments of all parties. And in the 2010s, the EU became its policeman across Europe.

Now, the desire to get away from this culture was one of the motivations that led so many of us back in 2016 to vote for Brexit. But despite leaving the EU, this culture has not been weakened. Indeed, the UK government, particularly since 2019, have been pushing it ever harder and harder.

This culture, too, has characteristics that make it very nasty to live under. One, it can never be applied fairly and justly. Collective limits always weigh hardest on the people at the bottom of the political ladder. The arrogant élites, both as individuals and as a group, will simply ignore the limits they themselves promoted. They think they only apply to “the little people.” That explains, for example, why so many hypocrites fly in CO2-spewing private jets to conferences designed to find ways to force ordinary people to reduce CO2 emissions.

Two, a key part of the design is that the goalposts must be kept moving. The job is never done; the problem, whatever it is, is never solved. For example, the CO2 emissions goalposts have already been moved many times, always in the direction of increasing restrictions. Exactly the same is planned for PM2.5, and no doubt other kinds of pollution as well.

Three, in the end, the targets or limits will always end up becoming unrealistic and unachievable. This has already happened with “net zero.” And it will do so with air pollution too, once the implications of the WHO’s 5 micrograms per cubic metre guideline for PM2.5 sink in to people’s minds.

Safety at any cost

Thirdly, these two cultural perversions together have brought about a culture of “safety at any cost,” to which we are subjected today.

This “safety” culture, as applied by political governments, subjects us to ever more and tighter restrictions, while spying on us to catch us out in the smallest violation. But who is supposed to feel safe? And who or what are we supposed to feel safe from? This culture certainly doesn’t make me, for one, feel safe against government overreach.

Moreover, this culture has led to ongoing failures to do objective risk analysis on, or cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people affected by, green projects. And in the latter case, to machinations designed to prevent any such cost-benefit analysis being done.

This culture of over-safety, I think, has also been a major force behind the ongoing assaults on our freedom of speech. For such a depraved culture cannot survive the glare of the truth. The demonization of opponents of the “climate change” meme. The censorship, using Big Tech, of dissident voices who seek to reveal the truth. The efforts to make any chance remark into a potential “hate crime.” All these, I surmise, are different heads of the same hydra.

And this hydra has, if I am not mistaken, many more heads still. The erection, on just about any excuse, of more and more “panopticon” cameras to track and record us as we go about our daily lives. The ever-growing list of situations, in which we are required to prove our identities, to confirm who we are. Projects such as anti-money-laundering laws, the abolition of cash, and central bank digital currencies, whose effects will be to destroy the last shreds of privacy in our financial dealings. All these, I think, are being driven ultimately by this same perversion, the culture of safety at any cost.

Governments and their hangers-on like to make out that they want us to be safe. Indeed, this very excuse is used to “justify” campaigns like “road safety.” But in reality, I think, it is the denizens of this depraved culture that want to make themselves safe. Safe from “climate change,” safe from air pollution, safe from the truth coming out, safe from all possible resistance by the human beings they are oppressing. Safe from us.

The interface between science and politics

I shall park these considerations for now, and look at a specific area in which I found what looks like political interference in what ought to be objective science.

The scientists

In putting together the story, I have gained a picture of the group of scientists, who work in the arena of air pollution toxicology. The group is small and international. And they often work together. Many of them have been working 20 years or more in the area. Most of their funding comes from governments – in the context of these essays, mainly the UK. But the group has also been significantly funded by the WHO and the EU.

These funders, as I see things, are also the main drivers of the cultural perversions, which I discussed above. I find it hard to believe that these paymasters would not seek to control the tune that is played by the pipers they fund. So, the hypothesis that there is groupthink among scientists working in the area, seems a reasonable one. Certainly, we know that there is plenty of groupthink among climate scientists!

The COMEAP reports

As to the COMEAP report of 2009 on PM2.5, I think that my conclusion that it was not an honest attempt to inform UK policy assessments is more than reasonable.

There were several things in it, that simply didn’t look right. If I try to pick out aspects of the report that I found most concerning, one would be that it concentrated on long-term exposure, whereas all the seriously harmful temperate-climate smogs of the past have been caused by relatively short pollution spikes. Another would be that it simply ended up parroting the WHO’s recommendation. A third would be the failure to consider in detail the interactions between PM2.5 and sulphates. Even though the authors of Working Paper 4, and the peer reviewers, had highlighted this as an issue.

To the COMEAP report of 2018 on nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It is interesting that, instead of detailing in the main report the studies that were taken into account, as they had done in 2009, they chose to relegate this to a Working Paper. It is also interesting that the lead author of that Working Paper, Professor Richard Atkinson of St. George’s, University of London, was among the three COMEAP members who took a dissenting view, and – rightly, in my opinion – refused to draw any “headline” conclusions about the risk of mortality from NO2.

Professor Atkinson was also a co-author of Working Paper 4 in the 2009 report, on sulphates. From the evidence I have seen, I am far more confident in his credentials as an unbiased, expert scientist, than I am in the COMEAP committee as a whole.

Another interesting point on the NO2 front is that I could find no evidence of nitrogen oxides being thought of as serious pollutants before 2013. That was the year of two review projects, REVIHAAP and HRAPIE, jointly funded by the WHO and the EU. Might it have been these projects that started the process of demonizing NO2?

Political interference

I also related two incidents, in which a deputy mayor of London tried to have the conclusions of scientific studies changed or suppressed. On the second of these occasions, a chair of COMEAP was involved in the deception.

But there is also evidence of political interference by activists inside government itself. There are clearly activists, not only in COMEAP, but in the Health Security Agency (HSA) which supports it. I will not name names here, but they are in the earlier essays. I also found at least one example of HSA connivance at director level with green pressure groups.

Moreover, the judicial review of the case against the ULEZ expansion, brought by four outer London councils, was obviously affected by political interference. Not only did the judge fail even to consider the two most important complaints made by the councils, the lack of cost-benefit analysis and the lack of proper consultation. But he then ruled against the councils, in a manner that had all the hallmarks of a whitewash.

I told of local councils, including Surrey County Council, becoming members of an activist organization called UK100, without allowing ordinary people any chance to object. While the main focus of UK100 is “net zero,” many of these councils have also become highly activist against cars. And city councils are joining C40, which is not only activist, but an international organization to boot; and whose current chair is none other than Sadiq Khan.

Behaviour towards the people

In the fifth essay, I looked at how Surrey County Council, in particular, is behaving towards us, the ordinary people they are tasked to serve. We pay huge amounts of money for the “privilege,” yet what we get in return is worth not much at all. And a lot of what they do, including all the anti-car policies, is directly opposed to our interests. Moreover, Surrey isn’t the only example: government today, at all levels, is doing similar things to us.

All this paints a picture of a government, indeed of an entire governmental system, that has gone seriously rogue. Government, at many different levels, is failing even to try to serve the people as it should. All the mainstream political parties – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens – are in on the scam. And judging by the example of Surrey, even the police are in on it, too.

When I went to read government documents or newspaper reports about anti-car policies, and tried to assess the mind-set of those responsible for those policies, I found myself using some extremely choice words and phrases. Zealotry. Dishonest. Devious. Lies, misleading, ad hominems. Bad faith towards the people. Wanting to use “nudge” and “behaviour change” techniques on us. Kleptomania. Arrogant and uncaring. Reckless and remorseless.

Are these the characteristics of those we want to see in positions of government power? No, they are the characteristics of psychopaths. These individuals are behaving like those whose chosen way of life is organized crime. If government fails to protect us against criminal psychopaths like these, what is the point of having it at all?

Where we are today

Car and van drivers are under attack on at least four distinct but related fronts.

Net zero

First, there is “net(t) zero,” and taxes and other policies supposedly to cut CO2 emissions. We are already paying huge vehicle excise duties and fuel taxes. “Pay per mile,” and the more nebulous “smart road user charging,” come from the same stable. These policies are being driven (no pun intended) by the United Nations.

The part of the UN concerned directly with CO2 emissions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the pressures for these policies are coming from the very highest level of the UN. That madman Guterres seems to be trying to destroy Western civilization! And UK governments, of all parties, have also been pushing these policies for more than 30 years, with great eagerness.

Anyone, who has looked objectively into the “climate change” and net zero issue, knows that the “science” is bad. There is no climate crisis, no proven problem with the global climate, and no rationale for any restrictions on CO2 emissions. Yet the pushers just keep on pushing.

Clean air

Second, there is “clean air,” also known by its older moniker, “air quality.” The London LEZ and ULEZ are examples of schemes supposedly to improve this. It is the WHO that is pushing policies in this area. But the UK government has been, and still very much is, helping things along. That Sunak is “on motorists’ side” cannot be other than a lie.

But what I only discovered in the course of writing these essays is that in air pollution too, the “science” does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be interesting if honest scientists with expertise in this area were to do a detailed audit of what has gone on in COMEAP, the HSA and the rest of the UK government over air pollution toxicology. And publish the results.

Road safety

Third, the mantra of “road safety.” This has already led to chicanes, speed-bumps, cycle lanes, road narrowing, and the proliferation of speed limits that creep inexorably downward year by year.

And now, it is being used to promote the unrealistic, unachievable, freedom-destroying wild goose chase that is Vision Zero. The driver of which is… yes, you’ve guessed it, the WHO.

Limiting road traffic

Fourth, there are attempts, physically or through legislation, to limit the amount of traffic on the roads. Schemes like the Road Traffic Reduction Acts of the 1990s originated with Friends of the Earth and the Green Party. But you can bet the UN will have been cheerleading for them too. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are an example of an attack of this kind.

The nub of all the problems

All these problems, as I see things, have three common factors at their core.

Gross over-government

Firstly: Government has become gross, both in its size, and in the scope and reach of what it does. In the process, it has lost all respect and concern for the people it is supposed to serve.

Western governments, including the UK, have outgrown all the boundaries of reasonability, both in the resources they consume, and in how they treat us human beings. They have ceased to serve the people as they should, but are treating us as no more than resources to be exploited and used for their nefarious plans. The political state has become ethically bankrupt. And it is beginning to show signs of financial bankruptcy, too.

Moreover, unaccountable superstates – not just the EU, but the United Nations too – are by their natures liable to trample on, and if not stopped trash entirely, human rights and freedoms.

Cultural perversions

Secondly: Political activists have contrived, over the last 40 years or so, to bring about major perversions in the cultures in developed countries, including the UK.

They rely on three main perversions in order to impose their wills on us. One, the perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny. Two, the culture of arbitrary, collective, ever tightening targets and limits. Three, the culture of safety at any cost, leading governments to act in many situations when they ought not to. This culture also leads them to disregard risk and cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people.

Psychopaths and power

Thirdly: Far too many in government behave like psychopaths. This, I think, has come about because the political state, as it exists today, is based on an idea called “sovereignty.” This idea was developed in the 1570s by French monarchist Jean Bodin. It has been implemented around the world since 1648 as the “Westphalian” state.

In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from payment.

Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as “the king can do no wrong.”) Thus, the state is unaccountable at its very roots. So, in spite of the sham called democracy, wannabe tyrants can join the state, and climb up its greasy pole. If they play their cards right, they can acquire money, influence and power, without the accountability that ought to go with them. It’s a crook’s wet dream.

In short: Political power attracts psychopaths and potential psychopaths. And lack of accountability is built into the political system. It is hardly surprising, then, that many of those that end up with political power behave like psychopaths.

To sum up

The level of emotion among those aiming to force us out of our cars, or tax us out of existence for using them, or both, is continuing to rise. It has reached fever pitch, and is already hard to distinguish from madness.

As I traced the back-story behind anti-car policies in the UK, I became convinced that none of the air pollution episodes in temperate climates since the 1950s, which have had serious negative health effects, had been caused by any one pollutant. In every case, for air pollution to induce significant bad health effects, two pollutants must be present in quantity: particulate matter (PM) and sulphur oxides (SO2 or SO3). And in almost every case, unusual meteorological conditions, such as a temperature inversion, are needed as well.

Since the 2000 introduction of ultra-low-sulphur diesel, cars are no longer a significant source of sulphur dioxide pollution. Thus, it seems unlikely that conditions anything like the London Great Smog of 1952 will occur in the future due to pollution from cars.

I became convinced that the COMEAP report of 2009 on PM2.5 was not an honest attempt to provide a basis for objective assessment of air pollution policies in the UK. It was merely an excuse for falling into line behind the position of the UN’s WHO.

I became concerned that the views of the scientists working in air pollution toxicology may have become perverted by groupthink. Two projects in 2013, which were jointly funded by the WHO and the EU, may have been seeds of such groupthink.

As to the COMEAP report of 2018 on nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, I found myself agreeing with the dissenting group within the committee. There is not enough scientific certainty to reach any quantitative conclusions on the toxicity of nitrogen oxides on their own. Without such certainty, to demonize diesel cars because they emit NOx is not justified.

I became convinced that, according to the peer-reviewed science, none of the UK government interventions impacting road traffic in London (congestion charge, LEZ, ULEZ) had been proven to have had significant positive health effects.

I identified three political and cultural factors, that seem to have combined to bring about the situation we find ourselves in. One, the gross over-expansion of government, that has taken place over the last few decades. Two, the perversion of the “precautionary principle” into a tool for tyranny. This has led to cultures of creeping targets and limits and of “safety at any cost,” encouraging governments to ride roughshod over the interests of the people they are meant to serve. And three, a political system left over from the 16th century, that leads too many in governments to behave towards citizens in a manner I can only describe as psychopathic.

How to go forward?

Now, I had originally intended, at this point, to start putting forward some ideas about what we, the ordinary people of the UK, might seek to do in order to fix these problems. But as I explored those ideas, I found that the task demanded a completely different kind of essay. One less focused on facts and deductions from them, and more focused on “philosophy.” I therefore decided to terminate this set of six essays at this point, and to address potential solutions to our problems under separate cover.

So, I shall leave you today with two things. First, for those who are interested, a “sneak preview” of my philosophical thinking as a whole: [[8]]. I must warn that the paper linked to is over 15,000 words. And despite all my best efforts, it is not an easy read. But the good news is, it’s out there.

And second, a promise to complete my work on the potential fixes just as soon as I can. Till then, in the words of Michael Ende: “But that is another story and shall be told another time.”


Posted by No comments:

Friday 19 April 2024

A further exchange with Jeremy Hunt MP on "nett zero"

Today, I received a reply to my e-mail to Jeremy Hunt MP, dated 29th November last year, regarding "nett zero." Here it is.


From: Jeremy Hunt MP 

Sent: 18 April 2024 16:59

Subject: RE: Nett Zero (Case Ref: JE93132)

Dear Neil, 

Thank you very much for your email and thoughts and I sincerely apologise for the immense delay in my reply. Regarding the report you mention,  the government is committed to tackling both the negative effects of air pollution and ensuring motorists can go about their lives normally. These goals are both achievable together. This is why in October last year the government announced a new plan to support drivers, keeping motoring costs under control to ensure that everyone has the freedom to drive as they need to. If you would like to read more about this report, you can do so here. I also hope it was welcome news in my Spring Budget last month that fuel duty will be frozen for an additional 12 months, which will save the average car driver £50 next year. 

Regarding transparency on net zero policies, I would just note that last year the government made it clear that we will take a realistic, pragmatic approach to reaching net zero. The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak announced revised plans for the government's approach to net zero to ease the burden on working people. That includes easing the transition to electric vehicles from 2030 to 2035 and giving families more time to transition to heat pumps while significantly increasing grants to upgrade boilers. If you would like to read more about these plans you can do so here. 

I appreciate your detailed thoughts and I will of course continue to monitor developments in this area. 

Finally, if you do not already receive it, would it be helpful for you to receive my weekly update of events in Westminster and locally? You can sign up here and can unsubscribe at any time. 

Thank you again for writing to me.

Best wishes,

Jeremy


And here is my reply:

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 29th November.

As to “ensuring motorists can go about their lives normally,” just yesterday I ran across this: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/diesel-drivers-could-banned-quickly-140857783.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHa2fdrn0HYtEg3rd29mQYS7_OtYV3icB7eo6A90FBsiqIJczeTiZqKyEcXc3SNnW6R6vzNLpgQznl_kY6Q5NiPp_rou0MbvrUYXHPMNOksI62hRSwk-1qQCS94USfs10ke9Idu_WcccfiDGjGOyX20POKCULhqaPvjEZI6f0PpQ. Unless you and the rest of the government can explicitly commit to stopping all such schemes, preventing them happening in the future, and allowing drivers to continue driving their existing cars without penalties for the rest of their lives, any reassurances you try to make on this score will not be believable.

I took a look at the “Plan for Drivers” you linked to at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plan-for-drivers/the-plan-for-drivers. I have to say that I find Mr Harper’s words there to be nothing but empty platitudes. When he failed to overrule the ULEZ expansion into Outer London, Mr Harper lost all credibility in my eyes, and I know I am not alone in that view.

As to “transparency on net zero policies,” you do not seem to have understood my main point, that no proper cost-benefit analysis has been done on “net zero” policies. If such an analysis were to be done now, it would show very clearly that the costs of “net zero” to the people are far greater than any putative “benefits.” (If, indeed, there actually are any benefits at all). That means that no government which honestly sets out to serve the people – as any democracy worth the name should always do – would ever have gone ahead with such a policy. Any honest government, seeing that the costs of “net zero” outweigh the benefits, would cancel those policies completely with immediate effect.

But you and your government have gone ahead with the “net zero” policies, without ever doing any proper cost-benefit analysis on them. Indeed, the current prime minister, when he became chancellor in 2020, set in motion a review of the “Green Book,” whose effect was to exempt “strategic” policies such as these from cost-benefit analysis altogether. In my view, this was an extremely dishonest thing to do. And it was only the latest in the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way” (in John Locke’s words), which has prevented proper cost-benefit analysis ever being done on policies like “net zero,” that flow from the climate change agenda.

I therefore have to assume that you and your party have no interest in honestly serving the people. Again, I am by no means alone in this. The government you are part of has been haemorrhaging its legitimacy, bit by bit, since at least Theresa May’s time at the helm. You are living on borrowed time, Mr Hunt.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock


Posted by No comments:

Thursday 11 April 2024

The Back-story behind Anti-Car Policies in the UK, Part Five: The story over the last 15 months

This is the fifth of a set of six essays. Together, they will document the back-story behind the anti-car policies, which have plagued the people of the UK, under governments of all parties, for the last 30 years and more.

I broke off the previous essay at the end of 2022. Today, I will cover 2023, and current developments in anti-car policies in my local area.

2023

In 2023, my focus on air pollution issues moved away from dissecting government technical documents, towards following developments. Now, there was a new version of the UK Air Quality Plan issued in 2023. But after the 2022 document I discussed above, I decided not to read it, on grounds of blood pressure. So, most of what I say about this year comes from newspapers or from the Internet.

ULEZ

In February, Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, trumpeted a “peer reviewed” report, claiming that the 2021 expansion of the ULEZ had had a “transformational impact” on air quality: [[1]]. But later, the Telegraph revealed that this report had been “peer reviewed” by none other than Dr Gary Fuller, a “Clean Air Champion” with the “Clean Air Programme.” Fuller was also being funded by Khan’s City Hall: [[2]]. So, this review was neither unbiased nor independent. And therefore, we must assume that neither was the report itself.

Also in February, four London councils – Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon – accused Khan of using “nonsense” data on air pollution deaths to support his expansion of ULEZ to Outer London: [[3]]. Khan, through a spokesman, replied “around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year as a result of poor-quality air, with the highest number of deaths in outer London.” This really is nonsense! OK Sadiq, show us the death certificates with “air pollution” contributing as a cause of death. Even 40 of them.

The ULEZ expansion into Outer London went into operation on 29th August, to protests from the public. A few days earlier, Khan had a bit of a brainstorm, publicly claiming that ULEZ critics were “conspiracy theorists” and “COVID deniers.” [[4]]. A typical ad hominem ploy, a frequent resort of those that have no evidence or logical arguments to back up their claims.

And yet, transport secretary Mark Harper failed to act, even to postpone the ULEZ expansion. His claims of not having the powers were laughable. If the Tories had wanted it stopped, they would have found a way. So, they must have given him orders. Harper did not help himself by calling out the expansion for the “cash grab” it is: [[5]]. Given that he knew the truth of the matter, his failure to act discredited him in the eyes of many people, including me.

Since then, “blade runner” protestors have been blocking or destroying ULEZ cameras. This was still continuing into 2024. I have recently heard about protesters, dressed as Batman, decorating the cameras with “bat boxes!” And the Reform UK candidate in the upcoming mayoral election, Howard Cox, is pledging to scrap ULEZ altogether.

In November, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that Khan had misled the public in his advertising about the “benefits” of ULEZ: [[6]]. The problem was that the claims were not based on actual measurements, but on modelled estimates of what air pollution would have been if ULEZ had not existed. As far as I am concerned, any “science” that includes modelling is automatically suspect. As has been proven again and again in the field of “climate science.” To try to pass off modelled figures as if they were actual data is an act of extreme bad faith. And Khan did it in at least two separate ads.

Smart Road User Charging

But ULEZ is not the only problem ahead for drivers in London. There is also the spectre hanging over their heads of “variable or distanced-based smarter road user charging.” [[7]].

Of course, the rest of us may well become victims of such a scheme in the not too distant future. Government, being the kleptomaniac it is, is looking all the time for new ways to screw out of us what little money any of us have left. But last I looked, there were no official plans for a national roll-out  along these lines: [[8]]. At least, if we can believe Jeremy Hunt, ha ha.

Glasgow LEZ

In June, Glasgow City Council, which had since 2018 had a “Low Emissions Zone” for buses and coaches, extended it to cars and vans also. In the city centre, this amounted to a total ban on vehicles that did not meet the same standards that would exempt them from the London ULEZ. There was overwhelming opposition among local business people to the scheme. And fines were draconian, starting at £60, and could rise as high as £480. That makes Sadiq Khan’s kleptomania look almost mild!

But in September, it emerged that the effect of this extension had been to increase both PM2.5 and NO2 in the zone by around 10 per cent. [[9]]. Scots Tory shadow cabinet minister Graham Simpson made an important point: “the very least the public deserve is that the environmental benefits outweigh the economic costs.” But, as far as I can see, nothing has been done to reverse the extension, or even to soften it.

The judicial review

In July, prime minister Rishi Sunak stated that he was “on motorists’ side.” [[10]]. He ordered a review of “low traffic neighbourhoods” (LTNs), which had been causing anger in many cities. (Since then, there has been a partial softening: LTNs will be allowed “only with local support.”) But ULEZ was not among the matters to be reviewed. So, this was an empty gesture. Mark Harper’s subsequent failure to act was proof of that.

Sunak made his comments in response to the rejection by a judicial review, on the previous day, of complaints made by Hillingdon Borough Council and other councils. I wrote about this review: “The omens were bad from the beginning, when the judge chose not to hear either of the two most important complaints brought by the councils. The failure to do a cost-benefit analysis, and the failure to do an honest consultation. Particularly since, as far back as January 2023, the Telegraph had accused Khan of manipulating the consultation by excluding dissenting votes.” This should at least have been investigated.

Yet, in the end, Mr Justice Swift seems to have based his decision [[11]] on small points of legality. As well as ignoring the fact that the case for ULEZ expansion has no objective foundation. This decision was what I call a “pro-establishment whitewash.” Like Climategate.

Investigative journalism

In October, investigative journalist Ben Pile issued a report which “sends a lightning bolt through Sadiq Khan’s irresponsible and dishonest claims that ULEZ expansion would ‘save lives.’” [[12]]. This concluded that “mortality statistics relating to air pollution are not grounded in strong scientific evidence, are the subject of scientific disagreement, and are underwhelming when seen from the level of the individual.” And: “Activists, politicians and some scientists, including scientific advisors, have wilfully exaggerated and interpreted and misinterpreted the mortality risk from air pollution, and failed to communicate shortcomings in the science and scientific debate to politicians and the public.” Given the trail I have exposed in this essay and the previous ones in this set, I heartily concur.

Ben Pile followed this up in November, with a report “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics,” exposing the money trail behind those pushing the “clean air” policies: [[13]]. It was followed up by the Telegraph: [[14]]. I myself wrote a summary of it, here: [[15]]. Particularly interesting is the funding, by billionaire and Extinction Rebellion (XR) funder Christopher Hohn, of Imperial College London, at which Kelly, Walton and Fuller are to be found doing their “day jobs.” Not to mention “Professor Lockdown” Neil Ferguson.

2024 in Surrey

Under the heading of 2024, I will cover two sets of anti-car policies, which are of particular interest to me right now. Both are projects of Surrey County Council. These projects are the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) and the Vision Zero road safety scheme.

Of all the boroughs which make up Surrey, I live in the one furthest away from London. It also has the least air pollution. It is an area in which, for anyone who lives away from the valleys and the railway lines and bus routes which run along them, a car is all but essential.

By the way, I have not voted in a local election since 1971. I regard all four of the mainstream political parties (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens) as criminal gangs, that are hostile to me and everything I stand for.

I am now a member of the Reform party, looking to help them ramp up opposition to the establishment. But I have neither the inclination nor the skills to stand for election myself. And there was no Reform candidate in my ward at the latest local election last year.

UK100

But first, the little matter of UK100. This is an activist organization, which describes itself as a “network of local government leaders for cleaner, more powerful communities.” According to its web site [[16]], its members “will continue to lead the UK’s response to climate change, acting sooner than the government’s goal by making substantial progress within the next decade to deliver Net Zero.”

UK100, as shown by the “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics” report I referenced above, is funded through chains originating from billionaires Christopher Hohn and Michael Bloomberg, both known to be extreme climate activists. It includes several councils that are at the forefront of anti-car extremism. Like Bath and North East Somerset, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire), Glasgow, Oxford (and Oxfordshire), and Portsmouth. As well as twelve London boroughs, including Hackney, Haringey and Islington.

UK100 is not the only organization of this type. For cities, there is a very similar organization called C40: [[17]]. It is a climate and “clean air” activist network of city mayors. And it is chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan. Enough said.

Now, Surrey County Council has for some time been a member of UK100. I was reminded of this at the beginning of the year, when the Telegraph carried the following: [[18]]. Yet we the people of Surrey never asked for our councillors to join this extremist organization, and have never been given any chance to object to the council’s membership of it. I wrote to “my” Surrey councillor, reminding her that the people of Surrey have not given the county council any mandate to belong to an organization like UK100. I have not received any reply. Hardly surprising, since the only reply the woman has ever made to me over any issue was: “It will not surprise you that as a Liberal Democrat my views do not concur with yours.”

I cast my mind back to the original “Agenda 21” of 1992. Under the heading of “Meeting the urban health challenge,” it had set out that local authorities “should be encouraged to take effective measures to initiate or strengthen” a number of activities. These included “develop and implement municipal and local health plans,” and “strengthen environmental health services.” Yeah, right. This crap that is coming at us originates from the UN. And it has been coming at us for more than 30 years, since the Rio “earth summit” in 1992.

Local Transport Plan 4

The Surrey “Local Transport Plan 2022-2032” [[19]] was actually issued in 2021. But I only became aware of it last month, when I met someone who is fighting against one of its schemes. It is a big document, almost 200 pages, and hard to read except in full-screen mode.

So, initially I thought that I would concern myself with just some of the worst low-lights. In the event, I skim-read about half of it. Here are my thoughts. The document is so rambling, that I couldn’t even divide my comments into coherent sections.

“Urgent global action is needed to avoid dangerous climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, including transport’s carbon emissions. That’s why Surrey County Council declared a climate emergency in 2019.” That first sentence is a lie. I myself have written an evidence-based de-bunk of the “climate crisis,” and had it published at “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.” [[20]]. The “climate emergency” idea is, and always has been, a total scam. Anyone that supports that scam has either failed to look at the evidence, or has ulterior motives for peddling their claptrap. Either they are morons who won’t look at the evidence and learn their lessons, or they are liars and troublemakers.

“Shift travel to more sustainable modes: public transport, walking and cycling, away from car use.” Now, I live at the top of a hill, more than a mile from, and 170 feet above, the local town centre. There are three routes between the two. Two of these are steep, and the third is trafficky. The only public transport that goes within half a mile of my home is a bus service that runs hourly at best, ends at 6-7pm, and doesn’t run at all on Sundays. It is also the only public transport in the whole area, that has a stop that isn’t down in the valley.

I used to be a cyclist – I once bicycled coast-to-coast across North America! But cycling isn’t a practical way to get around for a 70-year-old, who lives at the top of a steep hill.

I walk a lot, too. But walking is very hard work on the way back up the hill, particularly with shopping in the rucksack. I quite often have to resort to an expensive taxi! Oh, and I play the tuba. Try lugging a five-feet long, awkwardly shaped hunk of metal, weighing 30 pounds in its case, to and from the railway station down in the valley. And at the other end too.

“On average, Surrey’s air quality is better than the national average.” Yes; and in the borough where I live, air quality is the best in Surrey. So, why should I need to worry? If air pollution is a real problem today, it will show up in London. So, fix it in London. Don’t bother anyone else, unless and until it shows up as a real problem in their neck of the woods too.

“The LTP4 marks a step change for transport in Surrey, providing an opportunity to refocus and realign our transport policy to a unifying vision.” You won’t ever get ordinary people to fall in behind your “unifying vision,” unless it is a nett benefit to us. Each and every one of us. This vision sure as hell isn’t a nett benefit to me, or to others like me.

“Growing a sustainable economy so everyone can benefit.” I know what the word “sustainable” means. It means “able to endure into the future.” I also know what a sustainable economy is! It is an economy, from which no wealth is lost. The first step to making an economy sustainable is to get rid of bad political policies, stifling regulations, and wasteful bureaucracies. Let’s start by sacking all the arrogant scum that made this transport plan.

“Tackling health inequality.” “Tackling,” to me, is something done by very large men wearing rugby jerseys or American football uniforms. I am also concerned about any scheme that demonizes “inequality.” The real enemy is not inequality per se, but injustice.

“Build on behaviour changes and lessons learnt during lockdown.” During COVID, many people in my area (including me) stopped using public transport altogether. We did make, for a while, less journeys than normal. But a far higher proportion than normal were by car. For example, it was during COVID that I started driving to and from the park for my daily walk. I still do!

Policy area: “Demand management for cars.” “Altering parking supply and charges.” “Traffic calming.” “Engaging with pay as you drive developments.” “Using charging revenue to support sustainable modes.” “Pay as you drive,” by the way, looks like very much the same idea as London’s “smart road user charging.” Is it to be policed by automatic number plate recognition cameras everywhere? In my view, that would be a violation of our basic human right to privacy. Tracking people everywhere they go is, in effect, stalking them. And stalking is, rightly, a crime.

Whether or not road user charging happens at the national level, I can still hear the Ker-ching! of big heaps of cash coming in for the councils. And worse: just like ULEZ, these changes will force poorer or older people out of their (our) cars. It will very seriously damage our quality of life, and for those of us who are worst hit, will take away our mobility altogether. Moreover, isn’t “pay as you drive” already covered by taxes on fuel?

“Establishing 20-minute neighbourhoods.” Impractical for me. The two supermarkets I use most are both more than 20 minutes’ walk from my home. And 170 feet below.

“Limiting car and goods vehicle access” and prioritising other transport options. “20 mph the default speed for shopping and residential roads.” Do you not feel, again, an Orwellian boot stamping on cars and vans, and on their drivers?

“Some businesses and people who rely on car trips will be affected by the reduced convenience of car use, leading to a negative impact in the short-term.” That negative impact may be long-term or even permanent, for those people whom it causes to fall off the bottom of the transport ladder. Some may find themselves with no reasons left to live. How arrogant and uncaring are those, that want to do these things to innocent people!

“Increasing parking charges with tariffs reflecting emissions impacts.” “Increasing the cost per car journey to capture its wider impact on society.” All this piles yet more costs on people who can’t afford to upgrade their cars, when they are already suffering under a vast weight of vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes. That is extremely unjust. Particularly since the “emissions impacts,” even if there were any and they were significant at all, have been over-estimated by orders of magnitude.

“Workplace parking levies.” “Local shopping centre charges.” “Resident parking.” All this will be extremely lucrative for the councils, won’t it? Just like ULEZ. Ker-ching!

“Businesses with a significant reliance on freight and deliveries will be affected by the increased cost and reduced convenience of goods vehicle use.” And many tradesmen, too. This is simply meddling in people’s lives, and picking winners and losers, in order to harm the people, whom they have chosen to demonize.

“There will not be a case for investing in new road capacity.” Oh yes, there is. The road infrastructure in south-west Surrey is woeful. Apart from two main roads which have been improved, it has been getting steadily worse for decades. And jamming in lots of extra people makes things even worse. This does nothing at all to benefit the people of Surrey.

“Supporting behaviour change.” “We will build upon our previous successful behaviour change campaigns.” The function of governments – at all levels, including county – is to serve the people who pay for them: all of the people. Seeking to nudge us into whatever behaviour patterns are desired by an arrogant, uncaring élite is not serving the people.

I gave up at the end of section 3. It had become just too much hard work. But I had already seen enough to know that this set of policies shows its promoters up as the kind of dishonest, reckless, remorseless sods that don’t care a damn about human beings. They and their political agendas are far too prevalent in government today.

Once people become fully aware of what these policies entail, I foresee enough distress and anger among sufficiently many people, that the backlash will be monumental. The backlash against “net zero” has already begun. And the backlash against anti-car policies, I think, will soon extend from the ULEZ “blade runners” to ordinary people throughout Surrey, and elsewhere in the UK.

Vision Zero

Here is the official description of Vision Zero: [[21]]. “Vision Zero is a global movement to end traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by taking a systemic approach to road safety. The premise of this strategy is that road deaths and injuries are unacceptable and preventable.”

The concept

My first thought was: Knowing about “Absolute Zero” and its successor “Net Zero,” I find myself very concerned about the motives of anyone that puts forward a scheme with the word “Zero” in its title. My second was: In a supposed democracy, what is any part of government doing aligning itself with a “global movement” without reference to the people?

My third was: Is total prevention actually achievable, for any activity which has an inherent risk, however small? The mathematician in me says No. For in any situation where individual trials are independent, the number of trials carried out, multiplied by the chance of a bad outcome, equals the mean number of bad outcomes that are expected to happen. Ultimately, you cannot reduce the bad outcomes to zero without reducing the risk factor right down to zero. Impossible. And that means the only option is not doing the activity at all!

So, my follow-up thought was “this is about politics, not about road safety.” After all, despite many improvements over the years, we have not managed to reduce to zero the numbers of fatalities in bus, coach, rail or air transport. Or even on bicycles. So, I thought, the whole Vision Zero ideal is a wild goose chase. You can move towards such a goal – as long as you are willing to pay the costs. But you can never achieve it, unless you ban transport altogether.

Moreover, the cost-benefit aspect has not been considered at all. Cleaner air, and less or no lives lost on the roads, might sound like good goals. But no such changes can be good if the costs to individuals in prosperity, rights and freedoms are greater than the benefits.

The Vision Zero concept is being pushed hard for UK local authorities by an activist organization, “Action Vision Zero.” [[22]]. Many local councils are adopting, or considering, the Vision Zero agenda. They include Oxfordshire, the force behind traffic barriers and “15-minute cities” in Oxford; perhaps the most anti-car council in the whole UK. Google “vision zero councils” and you will find some more: Kent, Islington, Haringey, Bath and North East Somerset, Trafford, Leeds. Many of these are also members of UK100. Transport for London and Sadiq Khan are also in on it. And it is being pushed hard in other countries, too. Again, this is politics, not road safety.

So, who (no pun intended) is the ultimate driver of this wild goose chase of an agenda? See here: [[23]]. Yes, you’ve guessed it: it’s the United Nations. And specifically, the WHO.

As to Surrey County Council, Vision Zero is being pushed by the Liberal Democrat caucus on the council. There was a consultation period, but it expired on 24th March. Even if I had bothered to put in a response, given what has happened with other “consultations” on anti-car policies, I doubt anyone would have taken any notice of it.

The detailed proposal

I downloaded and read the proposal for Surrey. I got it from here: [[24]]. The consultation, such as it was, was on the same website. The title was: “Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy 2024-2035.” Two things grabbed my attention immediately. One, that it only covers the period 2024-2035 suggests that there is more and worse planned for the future, than is apparent in this document. Two, it appears to have been produced by Surrey Police!

“Corporate objectives.” Local councils, corporate or otherwise, ought to have one, and only one, overriding objective. That is, to serve the people of their area. Which means, all the people of the area, each and every one. And to do it both to the best of their abilities, and cost-effectively.

“Our aim is for all deaths and serious injuries from road collisions to be eliminated.” As above, this goal is impossible. And even if it was achievable, how much would it cost? Not just in financial terms, but in loss of freedoms, loss of opportunities, lowered quality of life? This scheme is not serving the people. It is zealotry from cloud-cuckoo-land.

“… safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.” Just what does this mean?

I noticed that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) is a co-signatory of this document. This PCC is a national-level bigwig. But the remit of a PCC is: “They are elected by the public to hold Chief Constables and the force to account, making the police answerable to the communities they serve.” Allowing the police to take part in political zealotry goes directly against the PCC’s remit.

“We have set a new target to reduce fatal and serious road casualties by 50% by 2035.” This is yet another example of arbitrary, creeping, collective targets and limits, set without reference to the people who will be expected to meet them. Further, like the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, all this comes from an international agreement, the Stockholm Declaration, to which we the people have never signed up: [[25]]. An international agreement driven by the WHO, indeed.

“We will need to work together even more effectively, do some things differently, do more of the things we know that work and if necessary, implement new initiatives.” You cannot reasonably force or even ask anyone to do such things, without first securing the consent of the people. To seek to do this to us without our explicit agreement is tyranny.

“Local Transport Plan 4,” “Climate Change Strategy,” “Health and Well-being Strategy.” I never asked for my life to be micro-planned. Nor am I happy, or able, to pay for it. Get off my back.

“Shared responsibility between stakeholders… to take appropriate actions to ensure that road collisions do not lead to serious or fatal injuries.” Speaking in my “philosopher” hat, there is no such thing as shared responsibility. There are only individual responsibilities (such as acting with reasonable caution when doing something which could bring risk to others), and responsibilities which have been voluntarily taken on. Moreover, “actions,” however many or large, can never “ensure” that nothing bad happens. Risk can never be eliminated, as long as the activity causing it continues.

Besides which, I am in my 54th year of driving. During which, I have driven around 400,000 miles. In all that time, I have had only one accident above walking pace; and that didn’t injure anyone. And I know from experience that the risk of an accident is unavoidable. No matter how experienced a driver you are, no matter how safely and smoothly you drive, no matter how “appropriate” your driving actions are, when two or even three unexpected things happen in quick succession, you are in the hands of luck.

“In recent years the ongoing reduction in fatal casualties has stalled.” Chart 1 shows the “stalling” to have begun somewhere between 2010 and 2013. As I recall, this is exactly the period during which “creeping speed limits” started appearing more and more on our rural roads. They obviously haven’t worked. So, “more of the same” is not sensible.

“Target for 50% Reduction in KSIs by 2035, from Baseline Average of 2019 and 2022.” Where are the feasibility and cost-benefit analyses, that show that meeting this target is both feasible, and cost-effective for the people (both financially and in terms of freedoms, quality of life, and so on)? Almost certainly, as with net zero, these exercises have never been done.

“We will develop summary data reports/fact sheets.” Good, but they must be honest. What will happen as and when the data shows that the policies are not working?

“More flexible policy… that will facilitate the implementation of 20mph schemes… where this is supported by local people.” Which local people? Over how wide an area? How will this support be measured?

“Tackling some of the worst speeding hotspots.” That’s like “tackling” climate change – it could mean anything, but whatever it does mean is likely to be nasty. Wouldn’t it be better to “tackle” only the worst accident hotspots? Besides which, in a lot of accidents (over 90%, so I hear), “speeding” is not a factor. Inappropriate speed for the conditions can be a factor, but this is not something that can be measured using cameras alone.

“We will aim to review and replace all the 60mph national speed limit roads in Surrey with new lower limits where appropriate.” But this has been happening for years – since the early 2010s! And it hasn’t worked.

“There will be a high level of compliance with speed limits.” This will mean a high level of fines, no? Ker-ching! And penalty points, too. Will there be a police “target” for the number of drivers disqualified each month? As with ULEZ and LTP4, this is really just a combination of money-grab and destruction of freedoms.

“Enforcement operations, and media and publicity campaigns.” We’ve seen all this before, haven’t we? I’ll say again: If you need to use “nudge” and “behaviour change” techniques, that shows you have no good arguments to convince people rationally.

 “…some main roads outside the centre of towns could remain at 30mph.” This seems to imply that 20mph will become a “new norm” with only a few exceptions. Despite the protestations that this is not a blanket 20mph approach, it seems to be so in all but name.

“Specialist police teams dedicated to improving road safety.” They should be concentrating on their real job of catching criminals, not harassing people who are merely going about their daily business, have no intention of harming anyone, and are not imposing any unreasonable risks on anyone.

“Lower speeds will provide a range of benefits including… Reduced noise and air pollution.” Not so – lower speeds can worsen noise due to more traffic being in a given space, and they often increase fuel consumption. Moreover, “buffer” speed limits are both frustrating and confusing, particularly when they vary several times, or go on over long distances. And a “long-term problem with drivers speeding,” if not accompanied by accidents, may simply be because the speed limit was set unreasonably low.

Some final points

There has been an increased trend recently towards idiotically low speed limits on particular roads in Surrey. 40mph on the approach to the roundabout at the southern end of the A331, for example. If you are passing a phalanx of traffic that has come from the Tongham slip road, and want to turn left towards Guildford, then to be safe, you must stay at 70mph until you have finished overtaking them all. It’s dangerous to change speed and lanes at the same time! If the phalanx is long enough, even the very safest drivers may find themselves 75% over this (arbitrary and unjustified) “limit” as they hit it.

Moreover, low speed limits also have psychological effects, including anger. Angry people do not drive as safely as relaxed ones.

Constantly checking the speedometer causes drivers to take their eyes off the road more often, increasing the danger of an accident.  And widespread, strict enforcement of speed limits will tend to cause bunching of traffic. This is dangerous in itself, as it encourages close following distances, and tends to cause stop-start congestion. It also increases the difficulty of moving lanes when you need to.

Moreover, “traffic calming” schemes and road width reductions often take away vital “wriggle room,” requiring increased concentration on the obstacles to be avoided, and leaving less for awareness of the situation developing ahead.

All that is on top of the increase in road works. Roads today are closed far more often than they used to be. They tend to be closed for far longer. Overnight closures are commonplace. Moreover, only a week ago, the route from my home to and from the main road was closed without any warning, any signs, or any reason given at the time. And on the very day I wrote this, I got caught by a “temporary obstruction, 15-minute delay.” Right on a junction that is very hard to find an alternative route around. And with no work going on that I could see.

Drivers of electric vehicles (EVs), or new “green” petrol cars, may think they are safe from ULEZ and the like. But even they won’t be safe from the “road safety” mafia. Nobody expects the Speed Inquisition! But nobody is safe from it, either.

Yet drivers face, not only ever-reducing creeping speed limits, and ever narrower roads with more obstructions, but also ever more cameras to catch us out! That is not treating us with the respect and dignity due to human beings. It’s just another dose of Orwell’s boot.

In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, every driver should be treated as an adult, capable of making his or her own decisions, and exercising reasonable caution towards others without needing to be locked in a straitjacket. People should not be treated as probable criminals for merely going about their daily lives.

This seems a good point at which to end this fifth essay. In the final essay of the set, I will summarize the anti-car policy situation in the UK as a whole, and draw some conclusions.

Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)