Shropshire, along with other councils,is required to 'review' its speed limits by 2011. This could in theory mean that some go up, and some come down. Unfortunately many councils, including Shropshire, have taken 'review' to mean 'lower.' Government guidance 'Circular 1/2006' contains good advice, but it is largely being ignored by the likes of Shropshire to make ridiculous speed limit cuts of up to 30mph (See also 'Warwickshire Ignores Police Objections to Speed Limit Reductions').
Shropshire's 'speed management strategy' is here:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/committee.nsf/0/E32EB43E0B72E63F80257631003095EE/$file/Speed%20Management%20Strategy.pdf
Predictably, the '1mph lie' is repeated, which claims that cutting speed limits will reduce accidents regardless of the cause. The truth about the fatal flaws in such studies can be found here and here.
Respond to the 'consultation' by 4th December:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/hwmaint.nsf/open/72B33479522CE3428025765D0036A9AD
Saturday 31 October 2009
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Sentinel Comment: Do we need cameras?
The news that one of Staffordshire's oldest road speed cameras is about to be decommissioned may mean some local drivers feel they can sleep easier in their beds. The camera set up on Silverdale High Street more than 12 years ago will undoubtedly have caught out scores of motorists. The Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership has now decided speed humps built on the same road in 2005 have slowed down cars to such an extent, a camera is no longer needed. At this point it is probably churlish to ask why a camera has been needed, for last four years, to enforce a 30mph limit on a road with traffic calming bumps? The removal of the yellow box in Silverdale is, after all, part of a county-wide review of all camera sites. However it is certainly an appropriate time to again point out that the majority of ordinary law-abiding motorists still regard speed cameras as a lucrative public income generator rather than a necessary public safety measure.
E very year, British motorists cough up £100m in speeding fines after being collared by speed cameras. A large wedge of this money is then spent on... more speed cameras. The authorities attempt to justify the cameras by quoting a variety of impossible-to-prove (or disprove), potentially-specious "facts". Only this week, the county council asserted that cameras "deliver a 63 per cent reduction in death and serious injury". No further evidence is offered to back up this very specific statement. Which is precisely the problem. For until the powers-that-be win over motorists, drivers will always believe it isn't only Silverdale High Street which should be rid of speed cameras.
The Sentinel, 16/10/09
E very year, British motorists cough up £100m in speeding fines after being collared by speed cameras. A large wedge of this money is then spent on... more speed cameras. The authorities attempt to justify the cameras by quoting a variety of impossible-to-prove (or disprove), potentially-specious "facts". Only this week, the county council asserted that cameras "deliver a 63 per cent reduction in death and serious injury". No further evidence is offered to back up this very specific statement. Which is precisely the problem. For until the powers-that-be win over motorists, drivers will always believe it isn't only Silverdale High Street which should be rid of speed cameras.
The Sentinel, 16/10/09
Staffs Speed Camera Catch Halved in Two Years
A Press Release of 26/10/09 from Staffordshire County Council below. I take what Mike Maryon says with a large pinch of salt - the halving of speeding tickets coincides with new rules preventing camera partnerships keeping the money from fines and financing yet more cameras - so the incentive to issue fines has been removed. I've previously shown that there is no correlation with speed cameras and road fatalities in Staffordshire here. I think that the figures should be 70,000 and 35,000 rather than 7,000 and 3,500.
Speed camera catch halved in two years
Staffordshire road safety chiefs have revealed that the county's speed cameras are bringing in only half as many convictions for speeding as they did a decade ago.
The stunning revelation comes as the county has bagged up a device in Silverdale - as the council commits itself to removing cameras that are obsolete.
Speed cameras are saving lives and not making money - that's the message from Staffordshire's road safety chiefs.
Over the last two years the number of tickets issued to speeding motorists from speed cameras has halved from over 7,000 to 3,500. At the same time Staffordshire has become the top road safety county.
Catching motorists is not and never has been an objective, making Staffordshire's roads safer is. Staffordshire does not financially benefit from the minority of motorists who receive a fixed penalty fine.
And the number of casualties at camera locations remains low - with an average drop of over 60% compared to the pre-camera situation.
That's why Staffordshire is officially the safest county in England - with less than half the casualties than many other comparative councils.
Statistical analysis from government shows that Staffordshire's road suffered just over three casualties per 100,000 miles, compared with just over four for Shropshire and Warwickshire, over six for Cheshire and Derbyshire, and eight for Nottinghamshire.
Staffordshire's cabinet member for highways Mike Maryon said the Staffordshire approach was paying dividends in saving lives.
"That's what the Staffordshire approach is all about. Cameras are just a small part of a much wider approach to driving home the road safety message. Campaigns, engineering solutions, education and training are all part of the mix.
"It's very pleasing that drivers appear to be getting the message. Speed cameras are working and slowing drivers down at the most dangerous locations
"When it comes to speed cameras, we only use them where there is a proven serious problem, and we will remove them if they are no longer needed.
"Those who claim they are there to make money are simply looking for an excuse for their dangerous driving. We would be delighted if no-one was caught speeding - then we could take them all out.
"But it's more deep seated than that. All the campaigning and education, training and awareness raising is getting through. We win award after award for innovation and creativity.
"Staffordshire is safer than other counties. It's official. But every death and injury is still a tragedy that could have been avoided. We have to keep on driving home the message that speeding can kill, and that drivers have a duty of care to the communities they drive through," he said.
Speed camera catch halved in two years
Staffordshire road safety chiefs have revealed that the county's speed cameras are bringing in only half as many convictions for speeding as they did a decade ago.
The stunning revelation comes as the county has bagged up a device in Silverdale - as the council commits itself to removing cameras that are obsolete.
Speed cameras are saving lives and not making money - that's the message from Staffordshire's road safety chiefs.
Over the last two years the number of tickets issued to speeding motorists from speed cameras has halved from over 7,000 to 3,500. At the same time Staffordshire has become the top road safety county.
Catching motorists is not and never has been an objective, making Staffordshire's roads safer is. Staffordshire does not financially benefit from the minority of motorists who receive a fixed penalty fine.
And the number of casualties at camera locations remains low - with an average drop of over 60% compared to the pre-camera situation.
That's why Staffordshire is officially the safest county in England - with less than half the casualties than many other comparative councils.
Statistical analysis from government shows that Staffordshire's road suffered just over three casualties per 100,000 miles, compared with just over four for Shropshire and Warwickshire, over six for Cheshire and Derbyshire, and eight for Nottinghamshire.
Staffordshire's cabinet member for highways Mike Maryon said the Staffordshire approach was paying dividends in saving lives.
"That's what the Staffordshire approach is all about. Cameras are just a small part of a much wider approach to driving home the road safety message. Campaigns, engineering solutions, education and training are all part of the mix.
"It's very pleasing that drivers appear to be getting the message. Speed cameras are working and slowing drivers down at the most dangerous locations
"When it comes to speed cameras, we only use them where there is a proven serious problem, and we will remove them if they are no longer needed.
"Those who claim they are there to make money are simply looking for an excuse for their dangerous driving. We would be delighted if no-one was caught speeding - then we could take them all out.
"But it's more deep seated than that. All the campaigning and education, training and awareness raising is getting through. We win award after award for innovation and creativity.
"Staffordshire is safer than other counties. It's official. But every death and injury is still a tragedy that could have been avoided. We have to keep on driving home the message that speeding can kill, and that drivers have a duty of care to the communities they drive through," he said.
Friday 23 October 2009
Letter Published in Local Transport Today
Tony Armstrong of Living Streets (LTT letters, 9 Oct) is typical of campaigners who promote exaggerated claims about climate and CO2 in order to underpin their otherwise shaky agendas. Climate change is always ‘happening’ but uncertainty remains about the causes and whether or not natural variability has been exceeded.
Tony’s claim that the BBC presents climate ‘facts’ objectively is demonstrably ridiculous. Ex-newsreader Peter Sissons recently expressed concern over the BBC’s one-sided presentation of climate science enthusiastically carried out by environment correspondents such as Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Remember Harrabin caving in to threats from ‘climate campaigner’ Jo Abbess by altering his ‘Global temperatures to decrease’ website story? It was me that exposed this affront to licence fee payers. No doubt similar dirty tricks have been tried with LTT.
Clearly, the very mention of cooling or a lack of warming sends climate alarmists into a panic. The decade of temperature stagnation since 1998 is established in the scientific literature, along with the ‘missing’ 0.2°C temperature rise that enhanced greenhouse warming should have brought us in the 21st century so far.
This lack of warming wasn’t predicted by the climate models that the climate scare is based on. The infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, deceitfully used to claim that the modern warm period is unprecedented, has been dealt a final, fatal blow by the disclosure (after nine years of asking) of the cherry-picked data used to construct it.
Furthermore, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has ‘lost’ or destroyed the raw instrumental temperature data used by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rendering the magnitude of the temperature rise unverifiable. There is also ample evidence from peer reviewed science of a 30% to 50% warm bias in the global average near surface temperature data.
Santer et al (2008) only used data up to 1999 in order to declare that computer models of greenhouse warming are consistent with the trends in the tropical lower troposphere. But if the data up to 2008 is used, then the models are shown to be inconsistent.
Tony cites Sir Nicholas Stern’s review of climate change economics to support his case but peer reviewed criticism of Stern’s report demonstrated that the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries were overestimated by an order of magnitude and that this overestimate was extended globally. Prominent economist Richard Tol dismissed the Stern Review as “alarmist and incompetent”. UK climate policy is described as “on course to fail” in a peer-reviewed critique.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has certainly joined other political sheep and embraced climate policy mythology. But if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonising its economy at an even lower amount, then I’ll become a member of Living Streets!
In short, current climate policy lacks a sound scientific basis and political feasibility.
Paul Biggs, Environment spokesman – Association of British Drivers, Tamworth Staffs B77
23/10/09
Tony’s claim that the BBC presents climate ‘facts’ objectively is demonstrably ridiculous. Ex-newsreader Peter Sissons recently expressed concern over the BBC’s one-sided presentation of climate science enthusiastically carried out by environment correspondents such as Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Remember Harrabin caving in to threats from ‘climate campaigner’ Jo Abbess by altering his ‘Global temperatures to decrease’ website story? It was me that exposed this affront to licence fee payers. No doubt similar dirty tricks have been tried with LTT.
Clearly, the very mention of cooling or a lack of warming sends climate alarmists into a panic. The decade of temperature stagnation since 1998 is established in the scientific literature, along with the ‘missing’ 0.2°C temperature rise that enhanced greenhouse warming should have brought us in the 21st century so far.
This lack of warming wasn’t predicted by the climate models that the climate scare is based on. The infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, deceitfully used to claim that the modern warm period is unprecedented, has been dealt a final, fatal blow by the disclosure (after nine years of asking) of the cherry-picked data used to construct it.
Furthermore, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has ‘lost’ or destroyed the raw instrumental temperature data used by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rendering the magnitude of the temperature rise unverifiable. There is also ample evidence from peer reviewed science of a 30% to 50% warm bias in the global average near surface temperature data.
Santer et al (2008) only used data up to 1999 in order to declare that computer models of greenhouse warming are consistent with the trends in the tropical lower troposphere. But if the data up to 2008 is used, then the models are shown to be inconsistent.
Tony cites Sir Nicholas Stern’s review of climate change economics to support his case but peer reviewed criticism of Stern’s report demonstrated that the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries were overestimated by an order of magnitude and that this overestimate was extended globally. Prominent economist Richard Tol dismissed the Stern Review as “alarmist and incompetent”. UK climate policy is described as “on course to fail” in a peer-reviewed critique.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has certainly joined other political sheep and embraced climate policy mythology. But if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonising its economy at an even lower amount, then I’ll become a member of Living Streets!
In short, current climate policy lacks a sound scientific basis and political feasibility.
Paul Biggs, Environment spokesman – Association of British Drivers, Tamworth Staffs B77
23/10/09
Monday 28 September 2009
Vodafone's Politically Correct Wrong Number in Eturia
HUNDREDS of call centre staff face having to walk, catch the bus or take a train to work because their new car park will not be big enough.
Vodafone's 1,200 North Staffordshire workers are preparing to move to a new multi-million pound call centre at Etruria in November.
But the office will have just 400 parking spaces, sparking fears of traffic chaos around the site.
The Sentinel: '1,200 workers and 400 parking spaces'
Vodafone's 1,200 North Staffordshire workers are preparing to move to a new multi-million pound call centre at Etruria in November.
But the office will have just 400 parking spaces, sparking fears of traffic chaos around the site.
The Sentinel: '1,200 workers and 400 parking spaces'
Thursday 24 September 2009
Paul Biggs' letter published in The Sentinel
Sort out Stoke campaign blog
Thursday, September 24, 2009, 09:20
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Sort-Stoke-campaign-blog/article-1366256-detail/article.html
Comment on this story
The comment piece Chaos and Confusion (The Sentinel, September 21) is an excellent summary of what is wrong with Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
However, there is a consequence of the shambles that seems to be missing from the article – the fact council officers are taking advantage of the situation to pursue their own agendas, particularly where car use is concerned.
Recent letters published in The Sentinel have highlighted how traffic flow is being obstructed by anti-car policies, to the point where Stoke-on-Trent has become a place to avoid, rather than one to visit.
As Gordon Sharp pointed out (The Sentinel, September 11): "If this city is ever to succeed in attracting visitors, and possibly investors/businesses, then the council must take a long, hard look at its attitude to motorists."
Although I live outside the area, local Association of British Drivers (ABD) members have brought the current intolerable situation to my attention, which is reinforced by correspondence within pages of The Sentinel.
I have, therefore, set up the SOS – Sort Out Stoke – campaign weblog, based around The Sentinel articles and letters, where local people can comment, at
http://sortoutstoke.blogspot.com/
I hope this will help bring the good people of Stoke-on-Trent together in order to help fight for the city they deserve, rather than the "no-go" zone being inflicted on them by a useless council.
PAUL BIGGS
ABD Staffordshire co-ordinator
Tamworth
Thursday, September 24, 2009, 09:20
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Sort-Stoke-campaign-blog/article-1366256-detail/article.html
Comment on this story
The comment piece Chaos and Confusion (The Sentinel, September 21) is an excellent summary of what is wrong with Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
However, there is a consequence of the shambles that seems to be missing from the article – the fact council officers are taking advantage of the situation to pursue their own agendas, particularly where car use is concerned.
Recent letters published in The Sentinel have highlighted how traffic flow is being obstructed by anti-car policies, to the point where Stoke-on-Trent has become a place to avoid, rather than one to visit.
As Gordon Sharp pointed out (The Sentinel, September 11): "If this city is ever to succeed in attracting visitors, and possibly investors/businesses, then the council must take a long, hard look at its attitude to motorists."
Although I live outside the area, local Association of British Drivers (ABD) members have brought the current intolerable situation to my attention, which is reinforced by correspondence within pages of The Sentinel.
I have, therefore, set up the SOS – Sort Out Stoke – campaign weblog, based around The Sentinel articles and letters, where local people can comment, at
http://sortoutstoke.blogspot.com/
I hope this will help bring the good people of Stoke-on-Trent together in order to help fight for the city they deserve, rather than the "no-go" zone being inflicted on them by a useless council.
PAUL BIGGS
ABD Staffordshire co-ordinator
Tamworth
Saturday 11 July 2009
Paul Biggs Quoted in The Daily Telegraph
British tourists warned over 'damaging' French fuel
British tourists holidaying abroad this summer have been warned a new "environmentally friendly" fuel on sale in French petrol stations could damage their cars and even cause breakdowns.
By Peter Hutchison in Brussels and Peter Allen in Paris
Published: 2:42PM BST 10 Jul 2009
Holidaymakers who have long enjoyed driving on the winding roads of the Dordogne or along stretches of the French Riviera may unwittingly ruin their vehicles' engines if they fill up with the recently introduced biofuel.
The petrol called '95-E10' is a mixture of regular unleaded fuel and ethanol. It is suitable for new cars but can damage vehicles registered before the year 2000, motoring bodies have warned.
The biofuel sits alongside the commonly used and similarly named unleaded Euro 95 in many garages across France and while a public awareness campaign in the country has avoided confusion amongst the French, British holidaymakers face the prospect of unwittingly picking the wrong pump.
Motoring associations, including the RAC, yesterday warned those preparing to travel to France to be aware of the biofuel which is 90 per cent regular unleaded and 10 per cent ethanol.
Ethanol is highly corrosive and wears away the metal fuel tanks common in cars registered before 2000, leading to leaks. Most new cars have plastic tanks and are therefore not be affected by corrosion.
"It's a concern and a worry, and something that holidaymakers need to be aware of," Paul Biggs, a director at the Association of British Drivers, said.
"If drivers can confuse diesel and petrol at the pumps, as they often do, then they could just as easily confuse ordinary unleaded with unleaded containing 10 per cent ethanol in France," Mr Biggs added.
"There is obviously the potential for a ruined holiday if your car breaks down or is damaged by using the wrong petrol," he said.
The E10, which has been gradually distributed across stations in France since 1 April, and which the French government has admitted is incompatible with 40 per cent of vehicles on the road, can damage engines of cars registered before the year 2000, according to Holland's national automobile association, the ANWB.
Almost one third of cars on the roads in the UK today were registered before 2000. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders there are 9,579,000 cars out of 31,105,988 which pre-date the year 2000.
Markus van Tol, a spokesman for the Dutch break-down repair service said that "filling up just a few tanks of the new biofuel could lead to problems with pipes and connectors". Regular use could leave long-lasting damage, he added.
A spokeswoman for the RAC said: "There is some concern that some, particularly older vehicles, might have problems - particularly materials compatibility i.e. flexible hoses leaking.
"Most newer cars should not experience any problems but owners, particularly of older vehicles, should check with the manufacturer for compatibility before using the fuel.
"I would advise motorists to look for any signage, such as E10, or the letters 'bio' to guide them in making a choice of which fuel to use."
The petrol's introduction follows an EU directive relating to the quality of fuels which states that all petrol must include between 5 and 10 per cent of ethanol by 2013.
The French energy ministry advised motorists with cars older than nine years to continue using Euro 98 or 95.
Telegraph.co.uk: British tourists warned over 'damaging' French fuel
British tourists holidaying abroad this summer have been warned a new "environmentally friendly" fuel on sale in French petrol stations could damage their cars and even cause breakdowns.
By Peter Hutchison in Brussels and Peter Allen in Paris
Published: 2:42PM BST 10 Jul 2009
Holidaymakers who have long enjoyed driving on the winding roads of the Dordogne or along stretches of the French Riviera may unwittingly ruin their vehicles' engines if they fill up with the recently introduced biofuel.
The petrol called '95-E10' is a mixture of regular unleaded fuel and ethanol. It is suitable for new cars but can damage vehicles registered before the year 2000, motoring bodies have warned.
The biofuel sits alongside the commonly used and similarly named unleaded Euro 95 in many garages across France and while a public awareness campaign in the country has avoided confusion amongst the French, British holidaymakers face the prospect of unwittingly picking the wrong pump.
Motoring associations, including the RAC, yesterday warned those preparing to travel to France to be aware of the biofuel which is 90 per cent regular unleaded and 10 per cent ethanol.
Ethanol is highly corrosive and wears away the metal fuel tanks common in cars registered before 2000, leading to leaks. Most new cars have plastic tanks and are therefore not be affected by corrosion.
"It's a concern and a worry, and something that holidaymakers need to be aware of," Paul Biggs, a director at the Association of British Drivers, said.
"If drivers can confuse diesel and petrol at the pumps, as they often do, then they could just as easily confuse ordinary unleaded with unleaded containing 10 per cent ethanol in France," Mr Biggs added.
"There is obviously the potential for a ruined holiday if your car breaks down or is damaged by using the wrong petrol," he said.
The E10, which has been gradually distributed across stations in France since 1 April, and which the French government has admitted is incompatible with 40 per cent of vehicles on the road, can damage engines of cars registered before the year 2000, according to Holland's national automobile association, the ANWB.
Almost one third of cars on the roads in the UK today were registered before 2000. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders there are 9,579,000 cars out of 31,105,988 which pre-date the year 2000.
Markus van Tol, a spokesman for the Dutch break-down repair service said that "filling up just a few tanks of the new biofuel could lead to problems with pipes and connectors". Regular use could leave long-lasting damage, he added.
A spokeswoman for the RAC said: "There is some concern that some, particularly older vehicles, might have problems - particularly materials compatibility i.e. flexible hoses leaking.
"Most newer cars should not experience any problems but owners, particularly of older vehicles, should check with the manufacturer for compatibility before using the fuel.
"I would advise motorists to look for any signage, such as E10, or the letters 'bio' to guide them in making a choice of which fuel to use."
The petrol's introduction follows an EU directive relating to the quality of fuels which states that all petrol must include between 5 and 10 per cent of ethanol by 2013.
The French energy ministry advised motorists with cars older than nine years to continue using Euro 98 or 95.
Telegraph.co.uk: British tourists warned over 'damaging' French fuel
Letter Published in Local Transport Today
The RAC Foundation is out of touch with ordinary motorists
LTT 19th June 2009
Paul Biggs, Director and environment spokesman, Association of British Drivers, Tamworth, Staffs
In his letter to LTT (Letters 5 June), the RAC Foundation’s Stephen Glaister has swallowed the two transport red herrings of carbon dioxide and road pricing whole. He could have gone for the anti-driver hat-trick if he’d also managed to include the ‘speed kills’ mantra.
Glaister is being extremely naive in thinking that road pricing will raise extra revenue or result in more road building. Even if road pricing were ‘revenue neutral’, it couldn’t be ‘cost neutral’ due to the high implementation and running costs. Reducing fuel duty/VED and replacing it with road pricing would cost £billions more to collect. Drivers doing less than 5,000 miles per year and travelling off-peak are likely to be either economically inactive or working hours that allow them to avoid congestion. Failing to recover lower fuel/VED costs from them via road pricing would increase the burden on essential peak time users.
The leader of Birmingham City Council recently described such a policy as being ‘morally corrupt’, so it beggars belief that the director of an organisation that purports to represent the interests of drivers doesn’t concur with that view.
Furthermore, if a significant number of lower income drivers were priced off the roads, which the RAC Foundation seems to desire, then the Government would argue that more road building isn’t necessary.
The voters in Manchester told transport secretary Geoff Hoon where he could stick his transport investment carrot in return for accepting congestion charging, despite a loaded poll question accompanied by ‘Yes’ propaganda. The non-existent ‘Plan B’ was soon found, unlike the weapons of mass destruction that Hoon promised would be found in Iraq when he was defence secretary.
I have no doubt that Hoon’s transport successor, Lord Adonis, would receive a similar negative response to road building in exchange for national road pricing.
The Government has plenty of money, including the £46bn per annum squeezed out of that ‘wallet on wheels’ known as the driver. The problem is, as the Taxpayers’ Alliance will testify, that the Government wastes around £50bn per year of our money on unnecessary bureaucracy, bureaucrats, quangos, consultants, projects and a whole host of hangers-on. Cutting waste requires no expensive Big Brother infrastructure but would help fund road building and other essential services.
Glaister’s attempt to link road pricing with climate change is equally silly. Even if CO2 is a more significant driver of climate than natural cycles and solar factors, which it isn’t, there would be no effect on climate.
Cars produce 11% of the UK’s 2% contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions, plus cars and trucks in the EU as a whole only contribute 2% to global man-made CO2.
Clearly the RAC Foundation believes that it needs to be politically correct in order to be consulted by the Government but in doing so it has become a voice of the New Labour anti-car agenda rather than a voice for drivers and has set itself on a collision course with grass roots drivers organisations such as the ABD.
LTT 19th June 2009
Paul Biggs, Director and environment spokesman, Association of British Drivers, Tamworth, Staffs
In his letter to LTT (Letters 5 June), the RAC Foundation’s Stephen Glaister has swallowed the two transport red herrings of carbon dioxide and road pricing whole. He could have gone for the anti-driver hat-trick if he’d also managed to include the ‘speed kills’ mantra.
Glaister is being extremely naive in thinking that road pricing will raise extra revenue or result in more road building. Even if road pricing were ‘revenue neutral’, it couldn’t be ‘cost neutral’ due to the high implementation and running costs. Reducing fuel duty/VED and replacing it with road pricing would cost £billions more to collect. Drivers doing less than 5,000 miles per year and travelling off-peak are likely to be either economically inactive or working hours that allow them to avoid congestion. Failing to recover lower fuel/VED costs from them via road pricing would increase the burden on essential peak time users.
The leader of Birmingham City Council recently described such a policy as being ‘morally corrupt’, so it beggars belief that the director of an organisation that purports to represent the interests of drivers doesn’t concur with that view.
Furthermore, if a significant number of lower income drivers were priced off the roads, which the RAC Foundation seems to desire, then the Government would argue that more road building isn’t necessary.
The voters in Manchester told transport secretary Geoff Hoon where he could stick his transport investment carrot in return for accepting congestion charging, despite a loaded poll question accompanied by ‘Yes’ propaganda. The non-existent ‘Plan B’ was soon found, unlike the weapons of mass destruction that Hoon promised would be found in Iraq when he was defence secretary.
I have no doubt that Hoon’s transport successor, Lord Adonis, would receive a similar negative response to road building in exchange for national road pricing.
The Government has plenty of money, including the £46bn per annum squeezed out of that ‘wallet on wheels’ known as the driver. The problem is, as the Taxpayers’ Alliance will testify, that the Government wastes around £50bn per year of our money on unnecessary bureaucracy, bureaucrats, quangos, consultants, projects and a whole host of hangers-on. Cutting waste requires no expensive Big Brother infrastructure but would help fund road building and other essential services.
Glaister’s attempt to link road pricing with climate change is equally silly. Even if CO2 is a more significant driver of climate than natural cycles and solar factors, which it isn’t, there would be no effect on climate.
Cars produce 11% of the UK’s 2% contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions, plus cars and trucks in the EU as a whole only contribute 2% to global man-made CO2.
Clearly the RAC Foundation believes that it needs to be politically correct in order to be consulted by the Government but in doing so it has become a voice of the New Labour anti-car agenda rather than a voice for drivers and has set itself on a collision course with grass roots drivers organisations such as the ABD.
Letter Published: Bumpy ride for councillor 'speed cushion' defence
COUNCILLOR Richard Grant is misguided in his support for the euphemistically named 'speed cushions' in Witherley Road, Atherstone (in Herald letters, May 28).
He confuses travelling speed with impact speed.
The two are rarely equivalent, and then only when a driver fails or doesn't have time to brake or take avoiding action.
Around 10,000 children are involved in collisions with vehicles in the UK each year.
Research suggests that an average impact speed of 20mph would result in up to 500 deaths.
The actual number of deaths is around 50, which suggests that average impact speeds are well below 20mph.
Furthermore, accident statistics tell us that children are rarely killed in the vicinity of schools.
This is no doubt due at least in part to congestion caused by the dreaded school run, which results in vehicle speeds below 20mph, and driver awareness of children travelling to or from school.
Thus speed humps are a 24/7 solution to a perceived temporary problem at school arrival and departure times.
As an alternative, the likes of Suffolk and West Sussex County Councils have implemented school safety zones (SSZs). This involves the use of road markings and advisory 20mph limits around schools.
Advisory flashing lights warn people using the road at school pick-up and drop-off times of the 20mph limit.
SSZs eliminate the well-known disadvantages of speed humps, which include increased vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, damage to vehicles even at low speeds, increased noise and vibration, traffic displacement on to non-humped roads, plus the potentially deadly effect on ambulance response times and patient comfort.
What a pity that Warwickshire County Council still lives in the dark ages of road safety solutions.
Paul Biggs, Director, Association of British Drivers.
Monday, June 08, 2009, 09:39
Tamworth Herald letters: Bumpy ride for councillor 'speed cushion' defence
He confuses travelling speed with impact speed.
The two are rarely equivalent, and then only when a driver fails or doesn't have time to brake or take avoiding action.
Around 10,000 children are involved in collisions with vehicles in the UK each year.
Research suggests that an average impact speed of 20mph would result in up to 500 deaths.
The actual number of deaths is around 50, which suggests that average impact speeds are well below 20mph.
Furthermore, accident statistics tell us that children are rarely killed in the vicinity of schools.
This is no doubt due at least in part to congestion caused by the dreaded school run, which results in vehicle speeds below 20mph, and driver awareness of children travelling to or from school.
Thus speed humps are a 24/7 solution to a perceived temporary problem at school arrival and departure times.
As an alternative, the likes of Suffolk and West Sussex County Councils have implemented school safety zones (SSZs). This involves the use of road markings and advisory 20mph limits around schools.
Advisory flashing lights warn people using the road at school pick-up and drop-off times of the 20mph limit.
SSZs eliminate the well-known disadvantages of speed humps, which include increased vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, damage to vehicles even at low speeds, increased noise and vibration, traffic displacement on to non-humped roads, plus the potentially deadly effect on ambulance response times and patient comfort.
What a pity that Warwickshire County Council still lives in the dark ages of road safety solutions.
Paul Biggs, Director, Association of British Drivers.
Monday, June 08, 2009, 09:39
Tamworth Herald letters: Bumpy ride for councillor 'speed cushion' defence
Letter Published: Use a legal protest route over speed limits
I DON'T condone the illegal swapping of speed limit signs on the B5000 (Herald, January 29), but the public should be made aware that Warwickshire County Council have ignored the Department for Transport speed limit setting guidelines (Circular Roads 1/2006) and police objections during the recent 'speed limit review'.
No speed limit should be set below the average traffic speed, speed limits can be raised where appropriate, speed limits should be self enforcing, and the council should work with the police rather than against them. None of the new speed limits, some of which have been reduced by 20mph, have anything to do with road safety. The only road with an accident problem was Fosse Way, where a proper investigation resulted in the speed limit remaining unchanged and other measures being implemented. 125 speed limits have been reduced by ten or 20mph and Warwickshire Police have refused to enforce the new limits. The following quote taken from council committee meeting minutes is typical of the 40 objections from the police: 'Speed data shows most traffic is finding 60mph appropriate for the road, mean data does not support 50mph. New limit would not be as effective in maintaining compliance as the present limit and the change would introduce an unserviceable enforcement burden, where at present none exists. Change is at odds with circular 01/2006 and no gains in casualty reduction numbers'.
Clearly it is a scandal that inappropriate speed limits have been set against expert advice from the police, but any campaign against Warwickshire County Council should be via a legal rather than an illegal route.
Paul Biggs, Director, Association of British Drivers (ABD), Two Gates.
Thursday, February 05, 2009, 15:00
Tamworth Herald letters: Use a legal protest route over speed limits
No speed limit should be set below the average traffic speed, speed limits can be raised where appropriate, speed limits should be self enforcing, and the council should work with the police rather than against them. None of the new speed limits, some of which have been reduced by 20mph, have anything to do with road safety. The only road with an accident problem was Fosse Way, where a proper investigation resulted in the speed limit remaining unchanged and other measures being implemented. 125 speed limits have been reduced by ten or 20mph and Warwickshire Police have refused to enforce the new limits. The following quote taken from council committee meeting minutes is typical of the 40 objections from the police: 'Speed data shows most traffic is finding 60mph appropriate for the road, mean data does not support 50mph. New limit would not be as effective in maintaining compliance as the present limit and the change would introduce an unserviceable enforcement burden, where at present none exists. Change is at odds with circular 01/2006 and no gains in casualty reduction numbers'.
Clearly it is a scandal that inappropriate speed limits have been set against expert advice from the police, but any campaign against Warwickshire County Council should be via a legal rather than an illegal route.
Paul Biggs, Director, Association of British Drivers (ABD), Two Gates.
Thursday, February 05, 2009, 15:00
Tamworth Herald letters: Use a legal protest route over speed limits
Monday 12 January 2009
'Intelligent Speed Adaptation' Trial - Views of a Volunteer
You might have heard how Intelligent Speed Adaptation or ISA, which is a GPS 'black box' speed limiter which knows where you are, will make cars 'safer'and reduce injury accidents by 29%, despite the fact that 'exceeding the speed limit' has never been demonstrated to be a big or the biggest factor in accidents.
Indeed, 'inapproriate speed for the prevailing road conditions, UNDER the posted limit' is a much bigger factor according to the DfT's own data - a factor that can't be tackled by ISA and indeed may be made worse due to 'foot to the floor driving' safe in the knowledge that the speed limit can't be exceeded. Of course another related issue is the fact that many speed limits have been lowered beyond what even the police consider reasonable. Anyway, below is an account of a participant in the 6month ISA trials:
I had one of these cars on test for 6 months; I was one of the volunteer drivers. I signed an agreement not to contact the media, I don't know if it still applies.
I had a couple of speeding fines and after that, I stuck rigidly to the speed limits. Of course, this means looking at the speedometer much more than is advisable etc, thereby not looking so much through the windscreen.
When I heard about this trial, I thought that it would be a brilliant idea, I could drive without looking at my speedometer and remain within the law. The first month of the 6 month trial was to have the system in monitor mode only. Incidentally, whenever you switch off the engine, it transmits its position and any other data, via the mobile phone GPRS Network, to the MIRA or Leeds University, thereby being a good security device, in the case of it being stolen. You should always get it back. If the government gets this system into your car, they won't need any cameras to see that you have over-rode the system and broken the speed limit, your car will tell them.
The car had a slightly thicker aerial on the back to act as the GPS receiver and under the floor in a compartment, quite a big computer.
The car was a Manual Gearbox, and did not have cruise control or satellite navigation, which was a surprise to me. It had a few dashboard modifications. A speed limit display and a couple of lights and buttons on the steering wheel, plus a total override switch on the dashboard, to switch if off completely.
I couldn't wait to get the system switched on. However, unless it has been considerably improved since my trial, it was not what I expected.
The computer controlled the throttle and the brakes. It did it by access to a Digital Map, supplied by the county council, I believe, who obviously thought that if they got within 20 or so yards of the speed limit signs, that was OK, so suddenly, you brake in front of the car behind, well in advance of the speed limit signs. I got a lot of rude gestures from other drivers. Normally, I keep myself to myself and avoid any conflicts. Worse still, was that if I was already braking for the speed limit and the system tried to brake as well, the car slowed very quickly, must be some hydraulic valve somewhere that got opened by twice as much or something.
Other problems were that the computer would suddenly, without warning reboot itself and cut all power to the engine other than tick over speed, this happened on a roundabout once and someone nearly went into the back.
If you override the system, either by pressing the accelerator to the floor or by pressing the opt out button on the steering wheel, it only overrides until either you slow down enough to be within the speed limit, or, really bad, this one, until you pass into a different limit. I was on a dual carriageway which was coming to an end and I wanted to overtake a lorry. I pressed the opt out button and went above the 70 limit, as I pulled in front of the lorry, the limit changed to 60 and the car put the brakes on. Rude gestures again. I got so fed up with it, I considered pulling out of the trial, but I am not one to give up, so I stayed with it for the full 6 months. I was thinking of changing my own car and thought that I could sell it and use this car for 6 months and then buy a new one. In the event, stored my own car for 6 months and still have it now. I was so glad to get back into it after the trial ended. The ISA car was delightful when the system was switched off, not as good as my own car, but still very nice. Two guys from MIRA came out to see the car but said they couldn't reproduce any of the problems.
I had to fill in monthly questionnaires, and attend meetings and rallies. I started positively but after a few months, I slated the system in every survey and called it dangerous. Another thing it did was to lift off the throttle on fast corners, not recommended. The system is only as good as its digital map and some roads even had the wrong speed limit, like one I used almost everyday which is a 50 limit but the car said 60 and would have allowed me to go at 60.
Another problem is that when you reach the maximum speed limit, say 30MPH and do not lift off the accelerator, it isn't a nice smooth speed, like a cruise control, the engine is constantly let to go up a bit and then slowed down a bit, it is like when engines used to hunt, so to be comfortable, you couldn't drive it at the maximum, it makes you feel sick and I don't know what it would do to the fuel consumption, being off and on the gas like that.
At some of the rallies, a lot of the drivers were just so pleased at having a free car for 6 months, they would not criticise it.
At the end of the day, anything which takes control away from the driver is a bad thing. It will eventually lead to an accident. It nearly lead to several with me and I am glad that the only road rage was hooters and gestures, I felt that someone was going to get out of the car and remonstrate after some inadvisable braking.
What this system would be good as is as an advisory system, to bleep when the speed limit is being broken. You could not complain about being done for speeding, if you ignored it, could you.
I got to be a test driver by answering an advert. Nothing else changed apart from my using the ISA car instead of my own for my travel, and at the end, I just went back to my old car. The reward was a free car for 6 months, I just had to pay for the petrol. The only way you can tell one of these cars from another is the sticker in the back THIS CAR OBEYS THE SPEED LIMIT, the slightly thicker aerial base and if you look inside, a few extra buttons. People need to be aware of these cars, there needs to be some kind of warning on them that they may behave in ways that a normal driver, in the car behind, would not expect.
Like you get warnings, No Hand Signals etc They didn't make them obvious as they didn't want someone breaking in to get the computer from them.
Obviously, if the system is incorporated into normal cars, the computer will be extremely small, not the big computer that was in these cars, about the size of a desktop PC, then it won't be a problem that someone may want to steal the components The Skoda was chosen because of the fact that it had throttle control by wire and a compartment under the boot floor.
Comment - all these adverse effects are entirely logical and predictable, and have indeed been predicted by opponents of this insane idea.
Note also the volunteers' built-in tendency not to look a gift horse in the mouth, though this did not stop the one truck driver on the experiment being vehemently critical.
Indeed, 'inapproriate speed for the prevailing road conditions, UNDER the posted limit' is a much bigger factor according to the DfT's own data - a factor that can't be tackled by ISA and indeed may be made worse due to 'foot to the floor driving' safe in the knowledge that the speed limit can't be exceeded. Of course another related issue is the fact that many speed limits have been lowered beyond what even the police consider reasonable. Anyway, below is an account of a participant in the 6month ISA trials:
I had one of these cars on test for 6 months; I was one of the volunteer drivers. I signed an agreement not to contact the media, I don't know if it still applies.
I had a couple of speeding fines and after that, I stuck rigidly to the speed limits. Of course, this means looking at the speedometer much more than is advisable etc, thereby not looking so much through the windscreen.
When I heard about this trial, I thought that it would be a brilliant idea, I could drive without looking at my speedometer and remain within the law. The first month of the 6 month trial was to have the system in monitor mode only. Incidentally, whenever you switch off the engine, it transmits its position and any other data, via the mobile phone GPRS Network, to the MIRA or Leeds University, thereby being a good security device, in the case of it being stolen. You should always get it back. If the government gets this system into your car, they won't need any cameras to see that you have over-rode the system and broken the speed limit, your car will tell them.
The car had a slightly thicker aerial on the back to act as the GPS receiver and under the floor in a compartment, quite a big computer.
The car was a Manual Gearbox, and did not have cruise control or satellite navigation, which was a surprise to me. It had a few dashboard modifications. A speed limit display and a couple of lights and buttons on the steering wheel, plus a total override switch on the dashboard, to switch if off completely.
I couldn't wait to get the system switched on. However, unless it has been considerably improved since my trial, it was not what I expected.
The computer controlled the throttle and the brakes. It did it by access to a Digital Map, supplied by the county council, I believe, who obviously thought that if they got within 20 or so yards of the speed limit signs, that was OK, so suddenly, you brake in front of the car behind, well in advance of the speed limit signs. I got a lot of rude gestures from other drivers. Normally, I keep myself to myself and avoid any conflicts. Worse still, was that if I was already braking for the speed limit and the system tried to brake as well, the car slowed very quickly, must be some hydraulic valve somewhere that got opened by twice as much or something.
Other problems were that the computer would suddenly, without warning reboot itself and cut all power to the engine other than tick over speed, this happened on a roundabout once and someone nearly went into the back.
If you override the system, either by pressing the accelerator to the floor or by pressing the opt out button on the steering wheel, it only overrides until either you slow down enough to be within the speed limit, or, really bad, this one, until you pass into a different limit. I was on a dual carriageway which was coming to an end and I wanted to overtake a lorry. I pressed the opt out button and went above the 70 limit, as I pulled in front of the lorry, the limit changed to 60 and the car put the brakes on. Rude gestures again. I got so fed up with it, I considered pulling out of the trial, but I am not one to give up, so I stayed with it for the full 6 months. I was thinking of changing my own car and thought that I could sell it and use this car for 6 months and then buy a new one. In the event, stored my own car for 6 months and still have it now. I was so glad to get back into it after the trial ended. The ISA car was delightful when the system was switched off, not as good as my own car, but still very nice. Two guys from MIRA came out to see the car but said they couldn't reproduce any of the problems.
I had to fill in monthly questionnaires, and attend meetings and rallies. I started positively but after a few months, I slated the system in every survey and called it dangerous. Another thing it did was to lift off the throttle on fast corners, not recommended. The system is only as good as its digital map and some roads even had the wrong speed limit, like one I used almost everyday which is a 50 limit but the car said 60 and would have allowed me to go at 60.
Another problem is that when you reach the maximum speed limit, say 30MPH and do not lift off the accelerator, it isn't a nice smooth speed, like a cruise control, the engine is constantly let to go up a bit and then slowed down a bit, it is like when engines used to hunt, so to be comfortable, you couldn't drive it at the maximum, it makes you feel sick and I don't know what it would do to the fuel consumption, being off and on the gas like that.
At some of the rallies, a lot of the drivers were just so pleased at having a free car for 6 months, they would not criticise it.
At the end of the day, anything which takes control away from the driver is a bad thing. It will eventually lead to an accident. It nearly lead to several with me and I am glad that the only road rage was hooters and gestures, I felt that someone was going to get out of the car and remonstrate after some inadvisable braking.
What this system would be good as is as an advisory system, to bleep when the speed limit is being broken. You could not complain about being done for speeding, if you ignored it, could you.
I got to be a test driver by answering an advert. Nothing else changed apart from my using the ISA car instead of my own for my travel, and at the end, I just went back to my old car. The reward was a free car for 6 months, I just had to pay for the petrol. The only way you can tell one of these cars from another is the sticker in the back THIS CAR OBEYS THE SPEED LIMIT, the slightly thicker aerial base and if you look inside, a few extra buttons. People need to be aware of these cars, there needs to be some kind of warning on them that they may behave in ways that a normal driver, in the car behind, would not expect.
Like you get warnings, No Hand Signals etc They didn't make them obvious as they didn't want someone breaking in to get the computer from them.
Obviously, if the system is incorporated into normal cars, the computer will be extremely small, not the big computer that was in these cars, about the size of a desktop PC, then it won't be a problem that someone may want to steal the components The Skoda was chosen because of the fact that it had throttle control by wire and a compartment under the boot floor.
Comment - all these adverse effects are entirely logical and predictable, and have indeed been predicted by opponents of this insane idea.
Note also the volunteers' built-in tendency not to look a gift horse in the mouth, though this did not stop the one truck driver on the experiment being vehemently critical.
A38 - Birmingham Big City Plan Consultation
I registered for this consultation as the representative of the ABD - others in the Birmingham area, or elsewhere, might want to register as individuals. Hurry up though - the consultation closes on 6th February 2009:
http://bigcityplan.birmingham.gov.uk/big-city-plan.php
Now the A38 is regarded as an obstacle to pedestrians and cyclists! This could be quite serious from a drivers' point of view - restructuring the A38 could be a nightmare:
4.2.1 Traffic congestion is currently related primarily to key junctions on the Ring Road, while the A38 corridor also continues to experience high levels of traffic demand. The main areas of congestion in the centre are at the junctions of Holloway Circus, Paradise Circus, St Chads, around the gyratory systems at Bull Ring/Moat Lane and at Masshouse. While access by car is and will remain vital for the success and vitality of the city centre, reducing traffic levels will be necessary if carbon emissions targets are to be met, while reduced congestion will also benefit the city. Improving the quality of alternatives to the car will clearly be essential (see later sections). The negative impacts of the physical traffic and highway infrastructure on the development and overall attractiveness of the city centre must also be addressed.
4.2.2 The A38 corridor within the city centre could be radically reconfigured to greatly enhance the city centre environment and improve pedestrian/cycle crossing links between the core and the rest of the city centre. Comprehensive restructuring would enable areas to the west of the corridor to fulfil their full potential as integral parts of the city centre. Lowering Great Charles Street, dismantling the Suffolk Street viaduct or changing its slip road arrangements and filling in the Holloway Circus underpass are all major engineering projects that could be pursued. The road would still retain an important traffic carrying function. However, depending on the extent of the changes to the road infrastructure, capacity could be reduced and this could have an effect on congestion, so any proposals would require modelling to establish the impact on accessibility and design.
Traffic flows into and out of the city centre have been falling gradually over the past decade, and the City Council wants to continue this trend. However, new development within the centre, as envisaged by the Big City Plan, will lead to the generation of new car trips and therefore current levels of congestion are expected to increase unless a range of appropriate action is taken. Highway capacity increases in key locations may be necessary as a result of the increase in the total number of trips related to new development. Such infrastructure changes should be designed to keep as much traffic as possible on the main roads and out of the most sensitive city centre environments.
http://bigcityplan.birmingham.gov.uk/big-city-plan.php
Now the A38 is regarded as an obstacle to pedestrians and cyclists! This could be quite serious from a drivers' point of view - restructuring the A38 could be a nightmare:
4.2.1 Traffic congestion is currently related primarily to key junctions on the Ring Road, while the A38 corridor also continues to experience high levels of traffic demand. The main areas of congestion in the centre are at the junctions of Holloway Circus, Paradise Circus, St Chads, around the gyratory systems at Bull Ring/Moat Lane and at Masshouse. While access by car is and will remain vital for the success and vitality of the city centre, reducing traffic levels will be necessary if carbon emissions targets are to be met, while reduced congestion will also benefit the city. Improving the quality of alternatives to the car will clearly be essential (see later sections). The negative impacts of the physical traffic and highway infrastructure on the development and overall attractiveness of the city centre must also be addressed.
4.2.2 The A38 corridor within the city centre could be radically reconfigured to greatly enhance the city centre environment and improve pedestrian/cycle crossing links between the core and the rest of the city centre. Comprehensive restructuring would enable areas to the west of the corridor to fulfil their full potential as integral parts of the city centre. Lowering Great Charles Street, dismantling the Suffolk Street viaduct or changing its slip road arrangements and filling in the Holloway Circus underpass are all major engineering projects that could be pursued. The road would still retain an important traffic carrying function. However, depending on the extent of the changes to the road infrastructure, capacity could be reduced and this could have an effect on congestion, so any proposals would require modelling to establish the impact on accessibility and design.
Traffic flows into and out of the city centre have been falling gradually over the past decade, and the City Council wants to continue this trend. However, new development within the centre, as envisaged by the Big City Plan, will lead to the generation of new car trips and therefore current levels of congestion are expected to increase unless a range of appropriate action is taken. Highway capacity increases in key locations may be necessary as a result of the increase in the total number of trips related to new development. Such infrastructure changes should be designed to keep as much traffic as possible on the main roads and out of the most sensitive city centre environments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
