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
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Saturday, 11 July 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
