John Humphries
Discussion
Has anyone read the editorial by the above named tosser, in the Sunday Times, today? He basically feels that motorists should be priced off the roads by toll charges, because, in essence, this will preserve the 18th. century England he believes still exists. There is so much vague, pinko, yogourht-knitting leftie sentiment in it, that it defies rational analysis, (although I have tried), and basically seems to consist of sentimentalist bollocks, by a man who will obviously die in the next 10-15 years, yet leave us with a legacy of lentil-munching fascism the like of which we have yet to behold. It also contains so many factual inaccuracies, that it is a weak little diatribe, by an unfortunatley influential, serial-Werther'er (remember that one, Ted?) Angry? - I almost choked on me pint of morning Duckhams!!!
I skimmed through his article and it annoyed me intensely. He quotes all sorts of stats to justify his argument which I am very dubious about.
Apparently polution caused by cars costs the health service £11 billion. Where the hell did he get that figure from?
It's been proven time and time again that you can't price people out of their cars. All they do is insist on higher pay or whatever to compensate which must stress the economy.
The only solution is a public transport system that works and is pleasant to use. I use the underground because it's not viable to drive across London. It's not great, but it's better than the alternative. Viable alternatives are what's needed. Trouble is they are difficult to create. Whingeing about cars and charging their owners more is no solution whatsoever.
Pah!
Apparently polution caused by cars costs the health service £11 billion. Where the hell did he get that figure from?
It's been proven time and time again that you can't price people out of their cars. All they do is insist on higher pay or whatever to compensate which must stress the economy.
The only solution is a public transport system that works and is pleasant to use. I use the underground because it's not viable to drive across London. It's not great, but it's better than the alternative. Viable alternatives are what's needed. Trouble is they are difficult to create. Whingeing about cars and charging their owners more is no solution whatsoever.
Pah!
Ted, I've spent the last 2 hours putting together a reply to that twit. I've just e-mailed it to him, I wonder if I'll get a reply. Here is my magnificent transcript!!
Dear Mr. Humphries,
I am writing to you following your vague, sentimentalist article, printed in the Sunday Times. I would like to venture a response, from a private car driver, who drives quickly, sometimes over the speed limit, and who has never caused the death or injury of a single person during his driving ‘career’.
Firstly, I would suggest that your note is one, more likely to incite murder, than suicide. I do not suppose that you will be killing yourself as a result of the article you have spawned.
One phrase at the beginning of your flimsy diatribe, can sum up the flaws in your anti-motorist argument…”stuff and nonsense. Let’s try a few facts.”
You mention the cost of motoring in this country, and compare it to other EU nations. The following is an American express survey, comparing motoring ‘value for money’ in EU countries:-
BEST VALUE FOR MOTORING IN EUROPE - FUEL PRICE COMPARISON
Country Cost per litre - 2001 Cost per 1,000 miles 2000 placing
1 Spain 45p £75.56 2
2 Switzerland 52p £86.91 4=
3 Ireland 56p £93.24 3
4 Austria 60p £100.57 1
5 Germany 66p £110.56 6
6= Belgium 68p £113.55 4=
6=Italy 68p £113.55 7
8 France 70p £116.55 8
9 Holland 73p £121.55 9
10 UK 79p £131.37 10
This doesn’t really tally with you argument, does it?
Next, you mention the ‘efficiency’ of modern cars. I take this to mean fuel efficiency. It may well be true, that in 10 years, cars will be 20% cheaper to run, but that is mainly because of increased fuel efficiency. How can you criticise that, given that with the finite resources available, fuel efficiency, in a world still totally reliant on fossil fuels, is of the utmost importance, and should be a priority throughout the world, not a statistic to be sneered at.
You seem to equate transport pollution with direct consequences on the health of our nation, yet you do so in such a vague way, that it is impossible to contradict you. Clever, but not really illuminating. I hope I may be forgiven for taking issue with the following statement:-
“Cars are bad for our health and our environment. The bill for treating all those people with disease caused by the filth that comes from our exhaust pipes is £11 billion”. You are well known for being a journalist of high integrity, so that statement seems a generalisation of such lamentable proportions, that I fail to see how you managed to proof-read it without balking.
I work in the NHS, and I have never seen a statistic based on such woolly, ill-conceived parameters. Sure, there is COPD, lung cancer, etc, etc, but in an industrialised society, can you really break it down to the level to which you seem to have access? I would love to see that report, if it exists. What is available, are the statistics relating to CO2 production from various sources. Transport ranks third (22% of CO2 produced), behind domestic and industrial, production. If we all follow your argument, then we should tax homeowners, and businesses, out of existence, before we start on cars. Perhaps that might work, as it would force more people out of work, so they wouldn’t have to drive there, and then instead of coming home, they could live in their cars. (Believe me, I know several people who are currently doing just that, but that’s another story). Is this the kind of social engineering you espouse?
Further, it is a sorry tactic, so beloved of armchair environmentalists such as you, to quote “global warming”, in answer to any question on cars, and car related problems. Perhaps, you would gain greater credibility if you and you cronies campaigned more vigorously abroad, may I suggest, in the USA, where, I believe, 12% of the world’s population exists, yet consumes 35% of the world’s energy. We are a little country, and probably do more to sort out our pollution problems than most industrialised nations. However, car owners are not the nation’s conscience, but are a soft target for green propaganda.
Next, you mention child casualties, again in a vague, disjointed way, which, I’m sure, serves your particular purpose. So, in order to balance your view, I quote the following figures from the DTLR report, 2000:-
Child casualties, decreased by 6%
Child fatalities, decreased by 14%
Overall child injuries, decreased by 9%
Pedestrian injuries, decreased by 7%
Car user injuries, decreased by 3%
During, this time, according to the DTLR, vehicle speeds did the following:-
Non-Urban Roads: 2000 Estimates:
More than half of all cars observed at the survey sites on motorways and dual carriageways travelled faster than the speed limit. 55 per cent of those surveyed on motorways exceeded 70 mph and 17 per cent were travelling in excess of 80 mph, while on non-urban dual carriageways, 52 per cent of cars exceeded 70 mph and 13 per cent were travelling faster than 80 mph.
On non-urban single carriageway roads, 9 per cent of cars exceeded the 60 mph limit, 2 per cent travelling at 70 mph.
There was a very high incidence of speeding by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on non-urban dual and single carriageway roads. On dual carriageways 90 per cent of articulated HGVs surveyed exceeded their 50 mph limit. On single carriageways 76 per cent of articulated HGVs exceeded their 40 mph limit, and 27 per cent were travelling faster than 50 mph; the average speed of articulated HGVs on these roads was the same as for cars, for which the limit is 60 mph.
Urban Roads: 2000 Estimates:
At survey sites on urban roads with a 30 mph speed limit 66 per cent of cars exceeded that limit, 32 per cent travelling faster than 35 mph. On 40 mph roads 25 per cent of cars exceeded the limit, with 7 per cent exceeding 45 mph.
Speeding by motorcycles remains at high levels. On 40 mph roads 36 per cent of motorcycles exceeded the speed limit, with 21 per cent travelling in excess of 45 mph. And 35 per cent of motorcycles travelled at over 35mph in 30mph zones.
On urban 30 mph roads, 54 per cent of 2-axle HGVs exceeded the speed limit, 19 per cent by more than 5 mph.
So, another fatuous argument emerges. It would appear that roads are becoming safer, despite higher speeds. Doesn’t really fit with your personal view, as expressed on national radio last week, does it? Another conclusion, which may be drawn, is that the law, in this area, is an ass, so freely is it flouted, and what use is a law to which so few pay heed. The world has moved on, traffic law has not, so how do we reconcile the, (absolute versus the perceived,) discrepancy?
Next, I turn to the rather bizarre commentary you present, on freedom. Here, I cannot quote statistics, because individual rights and freedoms are nebulous, at best, in a nation with no written constitution, and so are vulnerable to hi-jacking by any high-minded individual who has an axe to grind. (Heaven forfend it be the axe that falls on the right to manipulate to one’s own ends).
How would you define freedom in a civilised, post-industrial society, such as ours? Indeed, since we seem to be the first post-industrial society in the making, what parameters do we use to define freedom? Do we assume that he who shouts loudest carries the day? If so, then you journalists have the ear of the nation. Sadly, your cynicism at the state of the nation’s leisure pursuits, the right to go where we please, do what we want, means that your manipulative view of personal choice is not a model that can be viewed with much respect or credibility. If I choose to sit in a traffic jam, for 3 hours, am I compromising my personal sense of freedom? No. I chose that ignominious fate, of my own volition, and the consequences of that choice are mine and mine alone. That is the plain and simple truth of freedom. It is not to be contaminated with your view, nor anyone else’s, on my conduct.
Back to more practical matters. Your view of road congestion, is, I would venture to suggest, based on your experience of inner city London. I do not live there, nor in the commuter belt in which 25% of the nation’s population choose to exist. Thus, your recipe for space on the M25 may not suit the other areas of the country where people, however surprising it may seem, do manage to drive in relative freedom and space. I do not feel that your blanket of tolls and fines should cover me, when I live in a nation outwith the country-within-a-country that is London. Why should I be penalised for not being part of that navel-gazing metropolis that sweats it’s living, so far away?
Traffic growth? I cannot argue with your figures that traffic growth is 2% per year although I understand that 2.4 million cars were sold in this country last year, and given that there are estimated to be 25 million vehicles in the U.K., the figure seems more like 10%. Still, even the simplest of calculations would suggest that the maximum number of cars likely to be on our roads would equal the number of drivers available to pilot them. So, given that the UK’s population, over the age of 17, is currently about 35 million, it would appear that we are getting close to the point where every single driver in the country could be driving at the same time, and we could then very realistically assess traffic congestion, and road building requirements.
Why, tell me, do you quote journey distances? This nation is, increasingly, a mobile, consumer orientated one, and the increase in driven distances, is undoubtedly due to complex matters of demographics, employment, and social change. Your statement, with no qualification, is another fatuous, unrelated statistic, which I imagine has meaning for you, but contributes nought to your essay.
OK, I’ve had enough of this. The leafy lanes of Olde England have gone forever, and no amount of bluster and hot air will bring them back. Neither you, nor I, can live in a kind of misty, pastoral paradise, so beloved of Keats, Shelley, crusty old colonels, and the English Tourist board. The fact is that this nation is the most motor-obsessed nation on earth (Brazilians and Italians possibly excepted), and we see the car as a defining measure of the man. That is a truth within our society, and no amount of car tax, statistical analysis, nor bluster, will change that. There is a resistance to social change, on a scale that the chattering classes would find hard to comprehend, in expecting urban man to give up his car. Why can you and the anti-speeding, anti-car, menage not see that? Probably because you are out of touch with the reality of our modern society. There are a huge number of people out here, who see a car as a status symbol, and find themselves a position in the hierarchy of urbanity, through the badge on the bootlid of their latest motor. They do not care about pollution, and will forego tax and insurance, put false plates on their cars, even risk jail, to have that symbol of their progress, within a money orientated society. What statistic, what middle class, bleeding heart argument, will you use to change all that?
(However, might I suggest that, since 70% of all new cars sold in this country, are company perks, that these tokens of employment be taxed out of existence. Level the playing field for the private motorist, then see what happens. Road tolls are NOT the answer, even if company cars do all the miles. The company would still foot the bill, and the downtrodden private motorist would suffer yet again.)
Dear Mr. Humphries,
I am writing to you following your vague, sentimentalist article, printed in the Sunday Times. I would like to venture a response, from a private car driver, who drives quickly, sometimes over the speed limit, and who has never caused the death or injury of a single person during his driving ‘career’.
Firstly, I would suggest that your note is one, more likely to incite murder, than suicide. I do not suppose that you will be killing yourself as a result of the article you have spawned.
One phrase at the beginning of your flimsy diatribe, can sum up the flaws in your anti-motorist argument…”stuff and nonsense. Let’s try a few facts.”
You mention the cost of motoring in this country, and compare it to other EU nations. The following is an American express survey, comparing motoring ‘value for money’ in EU countries:-
BEST VALUE FOR MOTORING IN EUROPE - FUEL PRICE COMPARISON
Country Cost per litre - 2001 Cost per 1,000 miles 2000 placing
1 Spain 45p £75.56 2
2 Switzerland 52p £86.91 4=
3 Ireland 56p £93.24 3
4 Austria 60p £100.57 1
5 Germany 66p £110.56 6
6= Belgium 68p £113.55 4=
6=Italy 68p £113.55 7
8 France 70p £116.55 8
9 Holland 73p £121.55 9
10 UK 79p £131.37 10
This doesn’t really tally with you argument, does it?
Next, you mention the ‘efficiency’ of modern cars. I take this to mean fuel efficiency. It may well be true, that in 10 years, cars will be 20% cheaper to run, but that is mainly because of increased fuel efficiency. How can you criticise that, given that with the finite resources available, fuel efficiency, in a world still totally reliant on fossil fuels, is of the utmost importance, and should be a priority throughout the world, not a statistic to be sneered at.
You seem to equate transport pollution with direct consequences on the health of our nation, yet you do so in such a vague way, that it is impossible to contradict you. Clever, but not really illuminating. I hope I may be forgiven for taking issue with the following statement:-
“Cars are bad for our health and our environment. The bill for treating all those people with disease caused by the filth that comes from our exhaust pipes is £11 billion”. You are well known for being a journalist of high integrity, so that statement seems a generalisation of such lamentable proportions, that I fail to see how you managed to proof-read it without balking.
I work in the NHS, and I have never seen a statistic based on such woolly, ill-conceived parameters. Sure, there is COPD, lung cancer, etc, etc, but in an industrialised society, can you really break it down to the level to which you seem to have access? I would love to see that report, if it exists. What is available, are the statistics relating to CO2 production from various sources. Transport ranks third (22% of CO2 produced), behind domestic and industrial, production. If we all follow your argument, then we should tax homeowners, and businesses, out of existence, before we start on cars. Perhaps that might work, as it would force more people out of work, so they wouldn’t have to drive there, and then instead of coming home, they could live in their cars. (Believe me, I know several people who are currently doing just that, but that’s another story). Is this the kind of social engineering you espouse?
Further, it is a sorry tactic, so beloved of armchair environmentalists such as you, to quote “global warming”, in answer to any question on cars, and car related problems. Perhaps, you would gain greater credibility if you and you cronies campaigned more vigorously abroad, may I suggest, in the USA, where, I believe, 12% of the world’s population exists, yet consumes 35% of the world’s energy. We are a little country, and probably do more to sort out our pollution problems than most industrialised nations. However, car owners are not the nation’s conscience, but are a soft target for green propaganda.
Next, you mention child casualties, again in a vague, disjointed way, which, I’m sure, serves your particular purpose. So, in order to balance your view, I quote the following figures from the DTLR report, 2000:-
Child casualties, decreased by 6%
Child fatalities, decreased by 14%
Overall child injuries, decreased by 9%
Pedestrian injuries, decreased by 7%
Car user injuries, decreased by 3%
During, this time, according to the DTLR, vehicle speeds did the following:-
Non-Urban Roads: 2000 Estimates:
More than half of all cars observed at the survey sites on motorways and dual carriageways travelled faster than the speed limit. 55 per cent of those surveyed on motorways exceeded 70 mph and 17 per cent were travelling in excess of 80 mph, while on non-urban dual carriageways, 52 per cent of cars exceeded 70 mph and 13 per cent were travelling faster than 80 mph.
On non-urban single carriageway roads, 9 per cent of cars exceeded the 60 mph limit, 2 per cent travelling at 70 mph.
There was a very high incidence of speeding by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on non-urban dual and single carriageway roads. On dual carriageways 90 per cent of articulated HGVs surveyed exceeded their 50 mph limit. On single carriageways 76 per cent of articulated HGVs exceeded their 40 mph limit, and 27 per cent were travelling faster than 50 mph; the average speed of articulated HGVs on these roads was the same as for cars, for which the limit is 60 mph.
Urban Roads: 2000 Estimates:
At survey sites on urban roads with a 30 mph speed limit 66 per cent of cars exceeded that limit, 32 per cent travelling faster than 35 mph. On 40 mph roads 25 per cent of cars exceeded the limit, with 7 per cent exceeding 45 mph.
Speeding by motorcycles remains at high levels. On 40 mph roads 36 per cent of motorcycles exceeded the speed limit, with 21 per cent travelling in excess of 45 mph. And 35 per cent of motorcycles travelled at over 35mph in 30mph zones.
On urban 30 mph roads, 54 per cent of 2-axle HGVs exceeded the speed limit, 19 per cent by more than 5 mph.
So, another fatuous argument emerges. It would appear that roads are becoming safer, despite higher speeds. Doesn’t really fit with your personal view, as expressed on national radio last week, does it? Another conclusion, which may be drawn, is that the law, in this area, is an ass, so freely is it flouted, and what use is a law to which so few pay heed. The world has moved on, traffic law has not, so how do we reconcile the, (absolute versus the perceived,) discrepancy?
Next, I turn to the rather bizarre commentary you present, on freedom. Here, I cannot quote statistics, because individual rights and freedoms are nebulous, at best, in a nation with no written constitution, and so are vulnerable to hi-jacking by any high-minded individual who has an axe to grind. (Heaven forfend it be the axe that falls on the right to manipulate to one’s own ends).
How would you define freedom in a civilised, post-industrial society, such as ours? Indeed, since we seem to be the first post-industrial society in the making, what parameters do we use to define freedom? Do we assume that he who shouts loudest carries the day? If so, then you journalists have the ear of the nation. Sadly, your cynicism at the state of the nation’s leisure pursuits, the right to go where we please, do what we want, means that your manipulative view of personal choice is not a model that can be viewed with much respect or credibility. If I choose to sit in a traffic jam, for 3 hours, am I compromising my personal sense of freedom? No. I chose that ignominious fate, of my own volition, and the consequences of that choice are mine and mine alone. That is the plain and simple truth of freedom. It is not to be contaminated with your view, nor anyone else’s, on my conduct.
Back to more practical matters. Your view of road congestion, is, I would venture to suggest, based on your experience of inner city London. I do not live there, nor in the commuter belt in which 25% of the nation’s population choose to exist. Thus, your recipe for space on the M25 may not suit the other areas of the country where people, however surprising it may seem, do manage to drive in relative freedom and space. I do not feel that your blanket of tolls and fines should cover me, when I live in a nation outwith the country-within-a-country that is London. Why should I be penalised for not being part of that navel-gazing metropolis that sweats it’s living, so far away?
Traffic growth? I cannot argue with your figures that traffic growth is 2% per year although I understand that 2.4 million cars were sold in this country last year, and given that there are estimated to be 25 million vehicles in the U.K., the figure seems more like 10%. Still, even the simplest of calculations would suggest that the maximum number of cars likely to be on our roads would equal the number of drivers available to pilot them. So, given that the UK’s population, over the age of 17, is currently about 35 million, it would appear that we are getting close to the point where every single driver in the country could be driving at the same time, and we could then very realistically assess traffic congestion, and road building requirements.
Why, tell me, do you quote journey distances? This nation is, increasingly, a mobile, consumer orientated one, and the increase in driven distances, is undoubtedly due to complex matters of demographics, employment, and social change. Your statement, with no qualification, is another fatuous, unrelated statistic, which I imagine has meaning for you, but contributes nought to your essay.
OK, I’ve had enough of this. The leafy lanes of Olde England have gone forever, and no amount of bluster and hot air will bring them back. Neither you, nor I, can live in a kind of misty, pastoral paradise, so beloved of Keats, Shelley, crusty old colonels, and the English Tourist board. The fact is that this nation is the most motor-obsessed nation on earth (Brazilians and Italians possibly excepted), and we see the car as a defining measure of the man. That is a truth within our society, and no amount of car tax, statistical analysis, nor bluster, will change that. There is a resistance to social change, on a scale that the chattering classes would find hard to comprehend, in expecting urban man to give up his car. Why can you and the anti-speeding, anti-car, menage not see that? Probably because you are out of touch with the reality of our modern society. There are a huge number of people out here, who see a car as a status symbol, and find themselves a position in the hierarchy of urbanity, through the badge on the bootlid of their latest motor. They do not care about pollution, and will forego tax and insurance, put false plates on their cars, even risk jail, to have that symbol of their progress, within a money orientated society. What statistic, what middle class, bleeding heart argument, will you use to change all that?
(However, might I suggest that, since 70% of all new cars sold in this country, are company perks, that these tokens of employment be taxed out of existence. Level the playing field for the private motorist, then see what happens. Road tolls are NOT the answer, even if company cars do all the miles. The company would still foot the bill, and the downtrodden private motorist would suffer yet again.)
Well done Nubbin 
interestingly, IIRC, his column the previous week focused on the inherent dangers of 'banning things'.. the thrust of his argument was the condemnation of the high-mindedness of those who would ban what other people do which they don't like..
Hypocrisy rules..
Also, did anyone notice the piece on plod in Clarksons supplement, written by some pinko moron called Roland White (I think)? Clearly a pro-camera muppet and completely out of place in that supplement..
Bah... I bought that poxy paper for the first time in years because of that supplement... what a mug..
Might get time later to cobble together some vitriol.. if anyone needs email addresses of anyone at the Sunday Times, they're firstname.lastname@sunday-times.co.uk (except for some of the guest columnists) - this will get you thru to anyone from managing editor down.. don't bother with editor@sunday-times.co.uk though cos that'll get you thru to a bunch of blue-hairs who manage the postbag between crochet sessions..
interestingly, IIRC, his column the previous week focused on the inherent dangers of 'banning things'.. the thrust of his argument was the condemnation of the high-mindedness of those who would ban what other people do which they don't like..
Hypocrisy rules..
Also, did anyone notice the piece on plod in Clarksons supplement, written by some pinko moron called Roland White (I think)? Clearly a pro-camera muppet and completely out of place in that supplement..
Bah... I bought that poxy paper for the first time in years because of that supplement... what a mug..
Might get time later to cobble together some vitriol.. if anyone needs email addresses of anyone at the Sunday Times, they're firstname.lastname@sunday-times.co.uk (except for some of the guest columnists) - this will get you thru to anyone from managing editor down.. don't bother with editor@sunday-times.co.uk though cos that'll get you thru to a bunch of blue-hairs who manage the postbag between crochet sessions..
In fact don't bother buying the crummy paper, check it out on line. Humphrys' piece is here www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9003-2002055591,00.html but you'll need to register to see it.
Nice one nubbin -- a bit incoherent in the middle but solidly sound at the edges!
Nice one nubbin -- a bit incoherent in the middle but solidly sound at the edges!
quote:
(Carzee)
interestingly, IIRC, his column the previous week focused on the inherent dangers of 'banning things'.. the thrust of his argument was the condemnation of the high-mindedness of those who would ban what other people do which they don't like..
Hypocrisy rules..
Yes, I read last week's column too. Seemed to be a COMPLETELY different person! I thought his pro-freedom/anti-nannystate article was excellent. Either he's a very complicated person, or he's just being controversial for the sake of it.
Ted, I've been at it again! I've just sent this to the Editor of the Times...
Sir,
I read John Humphrey's article on toll charges etc. for road use, with initial indignation, rising to a crescendo of anger at the crass, sloppy and manipulative way he presents his views. His summaries are inaccurate, his use of statistics biased, and his conclusions are flimsy. I suspect this particular issue has bypassed his usual logic, and instead he has resorted to midle class doom mongering.
I am a motorist. I do speed. I own a fast sports car, and I enjoy driving it. I do so when conditions of weather, traffic, road and my driving skills, allow.
I am not a criminal. I am not a social pariah. I am not an untouchable. I will not allow woolly-minded self-righteousness, backed by government and Police propoganda, to fudge the arguments regarding speed, car safety, road safety, into an emotive chattering class festival of tut-tutting. It is to the shame of this Government, that they have deliberately set out to make speeding "anti-social", as a simple expedient of appearing to try to manage traffic problems. This allows them to continue the underfunding of all of our transport infrastructure, but use indignant headline grabbing statements to divert attention from the true issues. The truth of the matter is , that whilst vehicle speeds are increasing, and more than 50% of vehicles exceed current speed limits (DTLR report, 2000), all categories of road related casulaties have decreased (same report).
It requires a far more resonsible and sensible debate on the future of road transport. Speed is not the entirety of the issue. Driver training, vehicle standards, the state of our social structure, health of the economy - all these and more are factors in the equatin. It is easy to see why the speeding motorist is being targetted. Simply because it is so cheap and easy to use robotic detection methods (human and electronic) to catch people out. Far more expensive is the option of ensuring high quality driver training, and instilling a culture of RESPONSIBLE and courteous driving standards. If the Governement wishes to use the law to engender social change (a somewhat frightening prospect), then it would be better served, and certainly get the blessing of motoring groups, if the issues of driving standrads were addressed by this method. Speeding would be reduced as a by-product of this programme.
I am sure there will be many people who will poo-poo my attitude, and turn to invective and ill-informed bluster, if they get the chance to read this. What they fail to see is the erosion of their own civil liberties that this issue brings to light, the willingness of our government to manipulate the polpulace through the supposed maintenance of law and order. It seriously worries me, as does the sophistication of the application of the process.
I wonder if they'll pubish that?!!
Sir,
I read John Humphrey's article on toll charges etc. for road use, with initial indignation, rising to a crescendo of anger at the crass, sloppy and manipulative way he presents his views. His summaries are inaccurate, his use of statistics biased, and his conclusions are flimsy. I suspect this particular issue has bypassed his usual logic, and instead he has resorted to midle class doom mongering.
I am a motorist. I do speed. I own a fast sports car, and I enjoy driving it. I do so when conditions of weather, traffic, road and my driving skills, allow.
I am not a criminal. I am not a social pariah. I am not an untouchable. I will not allow woolly-minded self-righteousness, backed by government and Police propoganda, to fudge the arguments regarding speed, car safety, road safety, into an emotive chattering class festival of tut-tutting. It is to the shame of this Government, that they have deliberately set out to make speeding "anti-social", as a simple expedient of appearing to try to manage traffic problems. This allows them to continue the underfunding of all of our transport infrastructure, but use indignant headline grabbing statements to divert attention from the true issues. The truth of the matter is , that whilst vehicle speeds are increasing, and more than 50% of vehicles exceed current speed limits (DTLR report, 2000), all categories of road related casulaties have decreased (same report).
It requires a far more resonsible and sensible debate on the future of road transport. Speed is not the entirety of the issue. Driver training, vehicle standards, the state of our social structure, health of the economy - all these and more are factors in the equatin. It is easy to see why the speeding motorist is being targetted. Simply because it is so cheap and easy to use robotic detection methods (human and electronic) to catch people out. Far more expensive is the option of ensuring high quality driver training, and instilling a culture of RESPONSIBLE and courteous driving standards. If the Governement wishes to use the law to engender social change (a somewhat frightening prospect), then it would be better served, and certainly get the blessing of motoring groups, if the issues of driving standrads were addressed by this method. Speeding would be reduced as a by-product of this programme.
I am sure there will be many people who will poo-poo my attitude, and turn to invective and ill-informed bluster, if they get the chance to read this. What they fail to see is the erosion of their own civil liberties that this issue brings to light, the willingness of our government to manipulate the polpulace through the supposed maintenance of law and order. It seriously worries me, as does the sophistication of the application of the process.
I wonder if they'll pubish that?!!
quote:Having read his book (Devil's Advocate) I suspect there's an element of both.
Yes, I read last week's column too. Seemed to be a COMPLETELY different person! I thought his pro-freedom/anti-nannystate article was excellent. Either he's a very complicated person, or he's just being controversial for the sake of it.
He seems torn between the feelings of an old man embittered by the disappearance of life as he knew it, and those of a forward looking libertarian. His book re-inforces my view.
The conclusion he comes to in Devil's Advocate is that it is the duty of every citizen to dissent against the status quo in their own way.
PS Well done again, Nubbin - btw hope you followed my advice above re: emailing if your aim is to touch a nerve rather than get published in the letters page...
I worked for News International for nearly 5 years.. it's only since I left that I've been able to sleep soundly
Though I did once stand and slate the editor of the News of the Screws to her face about that "Sarah's Law" abuse of power 
>> Edited by CarZee on Tuesday 5th February 10:31
Nubbin, well said on both occasions. It's good to see that there are still eloquent literate people in GB still willing to use our beautiful language properly to stand up for our rights and at the same time to flame those barstewards! You've got my vote at the next election when you stand for the CAR party! 
Very eloquent Nubbin. I’ve read that article now, and it makes my blood boil. Its that kind of crap that brought me to the US. Some particular things about the article that drove me up the wall:
1. In 1950 we travelled five miles a day in our cars. This year we shall drive 25 miles a day. In 2020, if we keep building roads, it will be 60 miles a day.
I’m going to guess that the 5 miles a day he quoted comes total miles divided by population. i.e. using all the people who didn’t own a car to bring the figure down. My feeling is that by 2020 the miles per day won’t increase much even if the UK does build more roads because there’s a limit to how long people are prepared to spend in their car each day, and there’s a good chance that the people who put the most miles on the clock (reps and consultants) will be able to do a larger portion of their work from home.
I believe that the reason that road use has gone up is because jobs for life are a thing of the past. Now people can work for 5 companies in 10 years, and to move your family 5 times in 10 years is impractical, hence a base to live at, and a longer commute to work.
2. But if you build a road or widen the motorway and then charge people to use it you achieve two things
Excuse me, but aren’t British driver already paying for their roads? that brings me back to the question I asked the other day: How much does the government raise from motorists in all ways, and how much do they spend on motorists? the consensus was about 25bn a year raised with less than 20% spend on _all_ forms of transport including public.
btw. I believe that one of the reasons that the economy in the US is so strong is that tax on fuel is so low. The price of fuel underlies practically everything. By having a litre of gas cost about 25 pence, the government is comparatively subsidising all industries with transportation costs.
being forced to watch the traffic on the M25 for a year’s too good for him.
Its that kind of crap that brought me to the US. Some particular things about the article that drove me up the wall: 1. In 1950 we travelled five miles a day in our cars. This year we shall drive 25 miles a day. In 2020, if we keep building roads, it will be 60 miles a day.
I’m going to guess that the 5 miles a day he quoted comes total miles divided by population. i.e. using all the people who didn’t own a car to bring the figure down. My feeling is that by 2020 the miles per day won’t increase much even if the UK does build more roads because there’s a limit to how long people are prepared to spend in their car each day, and there’s a good chance that the people who put the most miles on the clock (reps and consultants) will be able to do a larger portion of their work from home.
I believe that the reason that road use has gone up is because jobs for life are a thing of the past. Now people can work for 5 companies in 10 years, and to move your family 5 times in 10 years is impractical, hence a base to live at, and a longer commute to work.
2. But if you build a road or widen the motorway and then charge people to use it you achieve two things
Excuse me, but aren’t British driver already paying for their roads? that brings me back to the question I asked the other day: How much does the government raise from motorists in all ways, and how much do they spend on motorists? the consensus was about 25bn a year raised with less than 20% spend on _all_ forms of transport including public.
btw. I believe that one of the reasons that the economy in the US is so strong is that tax on fuel is so low. The price of fuel underlies practically everything. By having a litre of gas cost about 25 pence, the government is comparatively subsidising all industries with transportation costs.
being forced to watch the traffic on the M25 for a year’s too good for him.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff