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:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)