Who dares stand up to the motorist?
Discussion
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,839396,00.html
I wrote this response to the Guardian newspaper which will probably end up an amputated letter if not in the bin but nevermind....
Who dares stand up to Catherine Bennett?
With reference to Catherine Bennett’s article “Who dares stand up to the motorists?” (14.11.02 G2 p5.):
Whilst I can appreciate that there is a perceived great divide between the interests of motorists and everybody else, a source of overly subjective writing from both camps, I find little justification for Catherine Bennett’s article. It is a sorry example of all that’s wrong with the motorist debate, an amalgamation of biased simplification and half investigated black and white portrayals of what is in fact a more complex problem than is presented here. This debate is not a simple case of, ‘Motorists want to go as fast as they like regardless of the lives of children’, a sentence which unfortunately more than adequately summarises Catherine Bennett’s message.
Somewhere in the middle of this journalistic creation is presumably the focus of the article: the ongoing wrangle over the colour of speed cameras. Should motorists be able to see speed cameras more easily by having them painted in bright colours and clearly positioned? This question can be answered simply by examining the true motivations behind them. The original premise behind such cameras was to provide a 24/7 coverage of accident black-spots, a constant vigil that would help reduce drivers speeds and raise their awareness through these locations. By lessening the contribution of just one factor - speed, surely lives would be saved.
It is important to understand that accident black spots do not exist because, for some peculiar reason, all motorists decide to drive dangerously fast on the same stretch of road. Bad road design, deceptive or poor visibility ahead, surface and roadside conditions also play large parts in increasing the likelihood of accidents and the severity of their outcomes. No one can deny that out of all contributory factors reducing speed is the easiest and cheapest to affect and is subsequently why speed cameras exist.
In principle speed cameras do not and should not exist to generate income as one of its goals, regardless of how the proceeds are spent. The fine is part of the deterrent to stop motorists speeding at these locations. Neither should they be used as part of any political wrangle over the future of personal transport in this country. Somewhere along the way the noble use of speed cameras have been hi-jacked by political interests and those seeking additional sources of authority funding. Why is it that they are now positioned where they’ll generate maximum revenue instead of where they’ll save most lives? Why is it that they are positioned on motorways, the safest of all roads and not outside schools? Is it so hard to see why the ‘stereotypical motorist’ no longer views them as a benefit?
What is frightening is the attitude of T2000. It appears that it has no interest in making the motorist particularly aware of dangerous stretches of road, or indeed of reducing accidents just as long as they are punished, be they dead or be they alive. The only justification they can offer for hiding cameras from the motorist is that if the driver does not know where they are, they will always obey the speed limit. This is laughable. The yellow camera is a recent development; it didn’t stop 2 million speeding tickets being dished out over the previous year when they were grey and hidden behind bridge supports. T2000’s claim that highly visible cameras “just migrate crashes from one place to another” is equally laughable and quite frankly insulting. The only way this T2000’s dogmatic approach will work is when there is no one left legally driving. Of course this will do little to reduce the rising number of untraceable uninsured, untaxed and possibly dangerous cars on the road but perhaps this debate can be saved or another time.
Finally it is worth remembering that the motorist is not some selfish elite minority who exists at the expense of a long-suffering majority. The motorist is you and I, ordinary people. A.k.a. the vast majority of the public. The only thing ‘minority’ about the motorist is the vocal fraction. It seems that Catherine Bennett has forgotten this and it serves T2000 to subvert this fact to a false perception. Perhaps it is they who represent the elite minority and are all too aware of it…
Regards,
Dan Ellis
I wrote this response to the Guardian newspaper which will probably end up an amputated letter if not in the bin but nevermind....
Who dares stand up to Catherine Bennett?
With reference to Catherine Bennett’s article “Who dares stand up to the motorists?” (14.11.02 G2 p5.):
Whilst I can appreciate that there is a perceived great divide between the interests of motorists and everybody else, a source of overly subjective writing from both camps, I find little justification for Catherine Bennett’s article. It is a sorry example of all that’s wrong with the motorist debate, an amalgamation of biased simplification and half investigated black and white portrayals of what is in fact a more complex problem than is presented here. This debate is not a simple case of, ‘Motorists want to go as fast as they like regardless of the lives of children’, a sentence which unfortunately more than adequately summarises Catherine Bennett’s message.
Somewhere in the middle of this journalistic creation is presumably the focus of the article: the ongoing wrangle over the colour of speed cameras. Should motorists be able to see speed cameras more easily by having them painted in bright colours and clearly positioned? This question can be answered simply by examining the true motivations behind them. The original premise behind such cameras was to provide a 24/7 coverage of accident black-spots, a constant vigil that would help reduce drivers speeds and raise their awareness through these locations. By lessening the contribution of just one factor - speed, surely lives would be saved.
It is important to understand that accident black spots do not exist because, for some peculiar reason, all motorists decide to drive dangerously fast on the same stretch of road. Bad road design, deceptive or poor visibility ahead, surface and roadside conditions also play large parts in increasing the likelihood of accidents and the severity of their outcomes. No one can deny that out of all contributory factors reducing speed is the easiest and cheapest to affect and is subsequently why speed cameras exist.
In principle speed cameras do not and should not exist to generate income as one of its goals, regardless of how the proceeds are spent. The fine is part of the deterrent to stop motorists speeding at these locations. Neither should they be used as part of any political wrangle over the future of personal transport in this country. Somewhere along the way the noble use of speed cameras have been hi-jacked by political interests and those seeking additional sources of authority funding. Why is it that they are now positioned where they’ll generate maximum revenue instead of where they’ll save most lives? Why is it that they are positioned on motorways, the safest of all roads and not outside schools? Is it so hard to see why the ‘stereotypical motorist’ no longer views them as a benefit?
What is frightening is the attitude of T2000. It appears that it has no interest in making the motorist particularly aware of dangerous stretches of road, or indeed of reducing accidents just as long as they are punished, be they dead or be they alive. The only justification they can offer for hiding cameras from the motorist is that if the driver does not know where they are, they will always obey the speed limit. This is laughable. The yellow camera is a recent development; it didn’t stop 2 million speeding tickets being dished out over the previous year when they were grey and hidden behind bridge supports. T2000’s claim that highly visible cameras “just migrate crashes from one place to another” is equally laughable and quite frankly insulting. The only way this T2000’s dogmatic approach will work is when there is no one left legally driving. Of course this will do little to reduce the rising number of untraceable uninsured, untaxed and possibly dangerous cars on the road but perhaps this debate can be saved or another time.
Finally it is worth remembering that the motorist is not some selfish elite minority who exists at the expense of a long-suffering majority. The motorist is you and I, ordinary people. A.k.a. the vast majority of the public. The only thing ‘minority’ about the motorist is the vocal fraction. It seems that Catherine Bennett has forgotten this and it serves T2000 to subvert this fact to a false perception. Perhaps it is they who represent the elite minority and are all too aware of it…
Regards,
Dan Ellis
I must say that woman appears to think that 'motorists' are all male, chauvanistic racers, because she writes as though she has a personal grudge against them. Freud would have a field day i'm sure.
People like this need to remove their blinkers and open their eyes - for example - i'm a man, drive a car, not just any car but a gas guzzling monster 4 litre sports car (that must make me the devils right hand man in their eyes) but i also walk, making me a whiter then white sweet innocent pedestrian.
Why do these people assume you can only be one or the other????
>> Edited by s_willy on Tuesday 19th November 13:26
People like this need to remove their blinkers and open their eyes - for example - i'm a man, drive a car, not just any car but a gas guzzling monster 4 litre sports car (that must make me the devils right hand man in their eyes) but i also walk, making me a whiter then white sweet innocent pedestrian.
Why do these people assume you can only be one or the other????
>> Edited by s_willy on Tuesday 19th November 13:26
"Doooooooooooooooooomed"?
OK, Frazer, calm down now.
Trouble is that I don't know what else you expect from the Grauniad. Sensible reporting of news? It'll be a shame if your excellent letter is ignored but I fear you're just waving a piece of tissue paper at a blind bull in a small china shop - there won't be much care taken over the fine words because it's not in their interest. Now if they were subject to some sort of whimsical non discriminatory government tax raising exercise everytime they felt like printing something excessive, just like the motorist faces every day........
...ah well we can dream.
OK, Frazer, calm down now.
Trouble is that I don't know what else you expect from the Grauniad. Sensible reporting of news? It'll be a shame if your excellent letter is ignored but I fear you're just waving a piece of tissue paper at a blind bull in a small china shop - there won't be much care taken over the fine words because it's not in their interest. Now if they were subject to some sort of whimsical non discriminatory government tax raising exercise everytime they felt like printing something excessive, just like the motorist faces every day........
...ah well we can dream.
s_willy said: ...for example - i'm a man, drive a car, not just any car but a gas guzzling monster 4 litre sports car (that must make me the devils right hand man in their eyes) but i also walk, making me a whiter then white sweet innocent pedestrian.
Why do these people assume you can only be one or the other????
>> Edited by s_willy on Tuesday 19th November 13:26
Yes, it's all very confusing. I'm reliably informed that, because I sometimes drive a car with a long bonnet, I am somewhat undernourished in the trouser department. Imagine my shock and confusion then, when I went on a train last week and my pork sword remained of exactly the same dimensions. To say that I was disappointed would be a massive understatement.
Imelda said:
Yes, it's all very confusing. I'm reliably informed that, because I sometimes drive a car with a long bonnet, I am somewhat undernourished in the trouser department. Imagine my shock and confusion then, when I went on a train last week and my pork sword remained of exactly the same dimensions. To say that I was disappointed would be a massive understatement.
'kin Brilliant!!!!!
It is interesting that the article is full of crap about fox hunting, the greatest Briton and global warming. Ms Bennet clearly displays all the characteristics of the stereotypical smellie I most hate.
The Guardian was started after the Peterloo disaster. This particular piece of establishment crime against humanity involved chopping innocent mill workers into pieces using sabres. The Guardian or The Manchester Guardian as it was then called was placed in trust by C.P. Scott in order to ensure its unbiased reporting of the News giving priority to injustice and the scandalous exploitation of the masses by the establishment.
Ironically last weekend in Wales more than 100 people were prosecuted for over 130mph between rally stages. This to me, is the modern day equivalent of Peterloo, particularly as many of these people will no doubt lose their licences, their livelihoods and possibly more. When they have harmed no one.
Somewhere along the way the Guardian has lost the plot. It does report the alternative view from time to time but it seems content to pedal the now mainstream view (or is it?) that flows from unelected organisations like T2000. Ms Bennet is merely another 'also ran' in long line of uninspiring 3rd rate hacks who lack the brains, flare and guts to present anything other than a soppy biggoted cloud of negativity which is beginning to become all consuming, effecting every aspect of our lives. she like the rest will be fast forgotten, along with the greatest Briton farse. I sincerely hope your letter gets printed. I am more concerned however with this question. If Ms Bennet is truly representing current thinking among the majority of the participants, where do I as an individual and the few or perhaps many with a like mind, go in the world, to get away from an opression so great, I would willingly take up arms in an act of defiance?
The Guardian was started after the Peterloo disaster. This particular piece of establishment crime against humanity involved chopping innocent mill workers into pieces using sabres. The Guardian or The Manchester Guardian as it was then called was placed in trust by C.P. Scott in order to ensure its unbiased reporting of the News giving priority to injustice and the scandalous exploitation of the masses by the establishment.
Ironically last weekend in Wales more than 100 people were prosecuted for over 130mph between rally stages. This to me, is the modern day equivalent of Peterloo, particularly as many of these people will no doubt lose their licences, their livelihoods and possibly more. When they have harmed no one.
Somewhere along the way the Guardian has lost the plot. It does report the alternative view from time to time but it seems content to pedal the now mainstream view (or is it?) that flows from unelected organisations like T2000. Ms Bennet is merely another 'also ran' in long line of uninspiring 3rd rate hacks who lack the brains, flare and guts to present anything other than a soppy biggoted cloud of negativity which is beginning to become all consuming, effecting every aspect of our lives. she like the rest will be fast forgotten, along with the greatest Briton farse. I sincerely hope your letter gets printed. I am more concerned however with this question. If Ms Bennet is truly representing current thinking among the majority of the participants, where do I as an individual and the few or perhaps many with a like mind, go in the world, to get away from an opression so great, I would willingly take up arms in an act of defiance?
nonegreen said: It is interesting that the article is full of crap about fox hunting, the greatest Briton and global warming. Ms Bennet clearly displays all the characteristics of the stereotypical smellie I most hate.
Nonegreen you are wasted on this site, You should be writing sitcom stuff (as most on TV especially BBC these days is total unfunny crap aimed at the majority of educations CSE failure types of the populus, punctuated with canned laughter) or take over the dire efforts of Anne Robinson to replicate Angus Deyton
You make me giggle
Maybe you do write sitcom stuff ( I hope its not the current drivel that is spread across the networks)
nonegreen said: to get away from an opression so great, I would willingly take up arms in an act of defiance?
So those points on your licence are still bugging you then?
Seriously - we may have a nanny state nowadays, buts its hardly oppression. If you want that try being a black in South Africa in the 80's or a Jew in Nazi Germany.
Perspective, eh?
Nice response, Dan and Nonegreen, teetering on the brink of inspirational!
Of course, this miserable lesbian rather misses the biggest point of all.
It is an economic necessity that our transport infrastructure flows and does so effectively. As we all experience, the ubiquitous and purgatorial gridlock screams quite the opposite.
Speed cameras? Yes, instruments of the morlocks for sure but hang on a second - I'd like to even get the friggin' opportunity to exceed them (on a regular basis) first!
Our main routes, quite patently, need simply vast investment. Three lanes? Four? Not sufficient. We need six, seven or eight; we need twin or triple tier fast ways with the possibility of underground routes and variable tolled sections for people who think £20, £30 or £40, say, is a small price to pay for unfettered, intercity progress. Like in France.
But it needs a regime that realises all the ponificating in the world about the plight of cormorants in the Norfolk Broads choking on this or that is an irrelevance if our means of conducting business are reduced to horses, carts and canal barges.
It redefines bleedin' obvious and I for one would vote for any political beast that propsed sweeping cuts in some of our more ludicrous and financially hemorrhagerous expeditions like EC contributions and certain aspects of the social security black hole.
We are run by a sorry army of angry ex-hippies and we simply cannot go on (quite literally) as we are doing much longer.
We need sensible policies for an economically viable Britain. And it ain't going to happen thanks to a bus or cycle lane here or there. Nettle grasping time, methinks.
Of course, this miserable lesbian rather misses the biggest point of all.
It is an economic necessity that our transport infrastructure flows and does so effectively. As we all experience, the ubiquitous and purgatorial gridlock screams quite the opposite.
Speed cameras? Yes, instruments of the morlocks for sure but hang on a second - I'd like to even get the friggin' opportunity to exceed them (on a regular basis) first!
Our main routes, quite patently, need simply vast investment. Three lanes? Four? Not sufficient. We need six, seven or eight; we need twin or triple tier fast ways with the possibility of underground routes and variable tolled sections for people who think £20, £30 or £40, say, is a small price to pay for unfettered, intercity progress. Like in France.
But it needs a regime that realises all the ponificating in the world about the plight of cormorants in the Norfolk Broads choking on this or that is an irrelevance if our means of conducting business are reduced to horses, carts and canal barges.
It redefines bleedin' obvious and I for one would vote for any political beast that propsed sweeping cuts in some of our more ludicrous and financially hemorrhagerous expeditions like EC contributions and certain aspects of the social security black hole.
We are run by a sorry army of angry ex-hippies and we simply cannot go on (quite literally) as we are doing much longer.
We need sensible policies for an economically viable Britain. And it ain't going to happen thanks to a bus or cycle lane here or there. Nettle grasping time, methinks.
Imelda said:
s_willy said: ...for example - i'm a man, drive a car, not just any car but a gas guzzling monster 4 litre sports car (that must make me the devils right hand man in their eyes) but i also walk, making me a whiter then white sweet innocent pedestrian.
Why do these people assume you can only be one or the other????
>> Edited by s_willy on Tuesday 19th November 13:26
Yes, it's all very confusing. I'm reliably informed that, because I sometimes drive a car with a long bonnet, I am somewhat undernourished in the trouser department. Imagine my shock and confusion then, when I went on a train last week and my pork sword remained of exactly the same dimensions. To say that I was disappointed would be a massive understatement.
I should point out that i drive a long-bonneted monster V8 to advertise the fact i have a jumbo pork pleasure lance as opposed to the widely held view that the long-bonneted monster V8 is in lieu of said pork pleasure lance. Very important to clarify these things what!
derestrictor said: ...
It is an economic necessity that our transport infrastructure flows and does so effectively...
It might not be unreasonable now to assume the exact opposite: economic benefit from gridlock.
Consider the effects of gridlock, namely congestion charging, toll-roads and the increased frustration that may lead some to go too fast when the road does clear -- right past a revenue camera.
It may not be to the benefit of GB Plc., but someone's making money out of it. Put simply, why would any government 'waste' money building new roads when they can simply make even more money by charging us, by whatever means, to use the ones we've already got?
whatever said:
It might not be unreasonable now to assume the exact opposite: economic benefit from gridlock.
Consider the effects of gridlock, namely congestion charging, toll-roads and the increased frustration that may lead some to go too fast when the road does clear -- right past a revenue camera.
It may not be to the benefit of GB Plc., but someone's making money out of it. Put simply, why would any government 'waste' money building new roads when they can simply make even more money by charging us, by whatever means, to use the ones we've already got?
Good points but I would suggest that the businesses being damaged by all this gridlock may ultimately cease to be, at which point the fundamental premise of socialist fiscal theory disintegrates - i.e. there's no bugger left producing owt from which to pay for all the committees and social engineering and so you have no tax to collect!
AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!
Here's a letter I sent to the Dept. of transport, setting out my reply to a letter I sent through faxyourmp.cm. I was trying to out across a citizen's point of view about speed cameras - sorry, I haven't copied the Rt. Hon. person's letter -
Dear Mr. Jamieson,
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my recent letter, which Mr. K. Barron was kind enough to forward to you. I hope you will take the time to read this letter also, by way of my reply to the points you raised.
What disturbed me about your reply was the assertion that this government, whilst not “anti-motorist”, certainly has a policy, or rather an ideological bias, against cars. Why? What is it that cars do, which so perturbs the government? They are, surely, just a mode of personal transport for the general population. They pollute lightly, generally stick to speed limits, perform a very useful conveyance, in the absence of viable alternatives, and allow freedom of movement for the workforce in the U. K., so contributing positively to wealth generation and employment. Are you seriously suggesting that there is an alternative to this form of transport, one that we are all to be compelled to use, by the use of draconian law making? Is there any effort on the government’s part, to listen to what the population feel on this issue? Show me a population-based survey, which concurs with the government’s strategic policy towards car use, and I will be happy.
The government seems to think that speed is the principle devil causing all motoring related problems. However, I would suggest that the public see dangerous driving as a far more threatening issue. Obvious examples of dangerous driving are encountered every day – using mobile ‘phones whilst driving, passing through red lights, dangerous overtaking, weaving through traffic, poor lane discipline on motorways, even basic road courtesy. As an average motorist, I have never really seen speeding as an issue – certainly not on trunk routes and motorways, where few casualties occur. Can you, therefore, justify the current attitude towards speed limit enforcement, as an isolated issue? Below is a table I have condensed from the latest available DTLR report, showing traffic speeds, in relation to the posted limits: -
Road type Speed limit Average speed Deaths SI
M’way 70 70 189 1401
Dual C’way 70 70 ) 1986 18536 (A roads)
)
Single C’way 60 45 )
Urban roads 30 32 ) 1414 23243 (built up roads)
)
Urban roads (2) 40 37 )
It is interesting to note that the figures show a moderate proportion of drivers exceed the speed limit, yet the average speeds mirror the set limit. How then, do you justify the huge sums of money being spent on policing this one small area of car activity? Contrary to some statistics, speed is NOT the causal factor in the majority of accidents. In one survey, it was found to be a causal factor in only 4.3% of accidents. A long way from the 30+% figures often seen in government propaganda! If speed can be cited as a causal factor, it is always going to be speed that is inappropriate to the circumstances at the time, wouldn’t you say? So, it is ridiculous to assume that static cameras can prevent a momentary lack of foresight on the part of an individual driver, isn’t it? So why persist in trying to persuade us that “speed kills” – easy on the ear, but simply untrue.
What the government fails to appreciate is the sense of injustice that pervades the issue of speeding and speeding fines. All that is seen, at grass roots, is in invasion and erosion of personal liberty, and an administration out of touch with the perception of the public at large. The huge amount of revenue generated by fines, shows both the disregard with which speed limits are seen, and a form of protest against their perceived injustice. Despite the misplaced moralising overtones to government statements on the issue of exceeding speed limits, motorists are being shown to ignore those limits. Has anyone in the Dept. of Transport bothered to ask why people ignore speed limits? Or is that too difficult an issue to discuss? There is, as you may be aware, a feeling that the current government is impinging more and more on the civil rights, and basic liberties of the individual, summed up as the “nanny state”. This can be summed up further by a quote on freedom, and the incursion of government, by Walter Bagehot:
“Our freedom is the result of centuries of resistance, more or less legal, more or less illegal, more or less audacious, or more or less timid, to the executive government. We have accordingly, inherited the traditions of conflict, and preserve them in the fullness of victory. We took on State action, not as our own action, but as alien action; as an imposed tyranny from without, not as a consummated result of our own organized wishes”.
Although it may be passive, there is undeniable resistance to the draconian measures currently being imposed. I feel the government needs to look long and hard at it’s reasoning on this issue.
Below is a chart, showing a gradual fall in the KSI figures over the last 10 years – there does not seem to have been much change in the trend, despite the hysterical over-reliance on speed cameras as a satisfactory policing method, does there?
My basic fear is that the government and Police are becoming complacent in chasing an unattainable and unrealistic target, and using the continuing downward trend in road casualties, as an excuses to punish motorists for speeding. This generates a huge amount of revenue, most of which goes into government general funds, and has little or no impact on either speeding, nor accident statistics. All that is happening is that accidents are being moved to other areas of road. Furthermore, there seems to be an obsession with technology as a method of law enforcement – I realise robot cameras are a lot cheaper than a live police officer and his car, but do automated systems really address the issues of concern?
Does the government intend to take a more realistic attitude to road use at any point? As an average motorist, I would suggest you take note of the following points:-
a) The vast majority of the public believe the speed limits, particularly on major routes, are unrealistic and out-dated.
b) Most people feel that cameras are there for revenue generation, not safety issues.
c) Dangerous driving, which is NOT synonymous with speeding, despite dubious assertions from evangelists such as Mr. Brunstrom, is of far more concern to the public, than high speeds per se.
d) People feel safe in modern cars, and drive at speeds relative to their feeling of well-being. (Legislation will struggle to change that.)
e) Road engineering would be a much more effective way of preventing accidents – e.g. re-siting lamp posts, road signs etc., well away from roadsides, to prevent cars hitting them, safer surfaces etc. That would bring down casualty figures.
f) Separate pedestrians from cars – use footbridges instead of crossings, railings next to busy trunk roads in urban areas – it costs money, but it’s OUR money, not the government’s, isn’t it? All the tax revenue from transport could be used to make roads and driving safer for all users.
g) Speed bumps, and other traffic “calming” measures, serve far more as a challenge to motorists, than a deterrent. Most people will try to drive around them, go as fast as possible over them, speed up between them, and do whatever to prevent impedance to their journey. YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THIS BEHAVIOUR – not as long as people do not see the sense of your policies, and as long as your policies do not concur with the wishes of the electorate.
h) Gentle warnings, e.g. the illuminated sign warning people of their speed as they enter built up areas, ARE very effective, and have the benefit of working with the population, not seeking to punish. We are generally responsible people out here, not criminal idiots, and I think we deserve to be consulted, and treated with respect, on issues which affect our daily lives, don’t you?
i) Not every accident is the fault of the car user. Pedestrians can be, and often are, thoughtless and arrogant towards cars, cyclists rarely obey traffic law, and can put themselves in trouble as a result (ignoring red lights, cycling on pavements to avoid traffic etc.)
I also take issue with your contention that the government is indulging in a coherent policy for transport. Looking at road expenditure figures for the last 10 years, shows that expenditure increased each year from 1990 – 1994, and has reduced every year thereafter. It is now LOWER than the 1990 figure (3073 million, versus 3828 million). Given that retail price index figures shrink the actual expenditure further, how is this a “policy for transport”? It also seems, from the figures that it took several rail disasters to stimulate any significant increase in rail investment, with the only major investment appearing in 2000.
The truth is that this government has lost sight of the fundamental issue of governing with the consent of the electorate. We are treated as inconsequential bumpkins, and alienated from the process of government, and make no mistake, the attitude of Mr. Blair and the rest of the current incumbents, is seen by ordinary people like me as aloof and sneering. Your governance is out of touch with the majority wishes, and because of this, you are resorting to dubious, undemocratic tactics. By not carrying the population with you by persuasion, you are forced into finding a punishment to subjugate the beliefs of the majority. That is why Canada has scrapped all its speed cameras – because the enlightened regime there saw that it was driving a wedge between Police/Government and public.
If you are really interested in road safety, start spending some of the huge tax revenue you take from us, on road engineering issues. That would be a permanent and welcome solution to accident blackspots. It won’t gather any revenue though.
I would be very grateful, if you would take the time to explain to me, the details of, and motivation for, the current government’s anti-car agenda. I am a moderately intelligent person, and would appreciate a reasoned reply, rather than an extension of your propaganda.
Yours sincerely,
>> Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 20th November 14:54
Dear Mr. Jamieson,
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my recent letter, which Mr. K. Barron was kind enough to forward to you. I hope you will take the time to read this letter also, by way of my reply to the points you raised.
What disturbed me about your reply was the assertion that this government, whilst not “anti-motorist”, certainly has a policy, or rather an ideological bias, against cars. Why? What is it that cars do, which so perturbs the government? They are, surely, just a mode of personal transport for the general population. They pollute lightly, generally stick to speed limits, perform a very useful conveyance, in the absence of viable alternatives, and allow freedom of movement for the workforce in the U. K., so contributing positively to wealth generation and employment. Are you seriously suggesting that there is an alternative to this form of transport, one that we are all to be compelled to use, by the use of draconian law making? Is there any effort on the government’s part, to listen to what the population feel on this issue? Show me a population-based survey, which concurs with the government’s strategic policy towards car use, and I will be happy.
The government seems to think that speed is the principle devil causing all motoring related problems. However, I would suggest that the public see dangerous driving as a far more threatening issue. Obvious examples of dangerous driving are encountered every day – using mobile ‘phones whilst driving, passing through red lights, dangerous overtaking, weaving through traffic, poor lane discipline on motorways, even basic road courtesy. As an average motorist, I have never really seen speeding as an issue – certainly not on trunk routes and motorways, where few casualties occur. Can you, therefore, justify the current attitude towards speed limit enforcement, as an isolated issue? Below is a table I have condensed from the latest available DTLR report, showing traffic speeds, in relation to the posted limits: -
Road type Speed limit Average speed Deaths SI
M’way 70 70 189 1401
Dual C’way 70 70 ) 1986 18536 (A roads)
)
Single C’way 60 45 )
Urban roads 30 32 ) 1414 23243 (built up roads)
)
Urban roads (2) 40 37 )
It is interesting to note that the figures show a moderate proportion of drivers exceed the speed limit, yet the average speeds mirror the set limit. How then, do you justify the huge sums of money being spent on policing this one small area of car activity? Contrary to some statistics, speed is NOT the causal factor in the majority of accidents. In one survey, it was found to be a causal factor in only 4.3% of accidents. A long way from the 30+% figures often seen in government propaganda! If speed can be cited as a causal factor, it is always going to be speed that is inappropriate to the circumstances at the time, wouldn’t you say? So, it is ridiculous to assume that static cameras can prevent a momentary lack of foresight on the part of an individual driver, isn’t it? So why persist in trying to persuade us that “speed kills” – easy on the ear, but simply untrue.
What the government fails to appreciate is the sense of injustice that pervades the issue of speeding and speeding fines. All that is seen, at grass roots, is in invasion and erosion of personal liberty, and an administration out of touch with the perception of the public at large. The huge amount of revenue generated by fines, shows both the disregard with which speed limits are seen, and a form of protest against their perceived injustice. Despite the misplaced moralising overtones to government statements on the issue of exceeding speed limits, motorists are being shown to ignore those limits. Has anyone in the Dept. of Transport bothered to ask why people ignore speed limits? Or is that too difficult an issue to discuss? There is, as you may be aware, a feeling that the current government is impinging more and more on the civil rights, and basic liberties of the individual, summed up as the “nanny state”. This can be summed up further by a quote on freedom, and the incursion of government, by Walter Bagehot:
“Our freedom is the result of centuries of resistance, more or less legal, more or less illegal, more or less audacious, or more or less timid, to the executive government. We have accordingly, inherited the traditions of conflict, and preserve them in the fullness of victory. We took on State action, not as our own action, but as alien action; as an imposed tyranny from without, not as a consummated result of our own organized wishes”.
Although it may be passive, there is undeniable resistance to the draconian measures currently being imposed. I feel the government needs to look long and hard at it’s reasoning on this issue.
Below is a chart, showing a gradual fall in the KSI figures over the last 10 years – there does not seem to have been much change in the trend, despite the hysterical over-reliance on speed cameras as a satisfactory policing method, does there?
My basic fear is that the government and Police are becoming complacent in chasing an unattainable and unrealistic target, and using the continuing downward trend in road casualties, as an excuses to punish motorists for speeding. This generates a huge amount of revenue, most of which goes into government general funds, and has little or no impact on either speeding, nor accident statistics. All that is happening is that accidents are being moved to other areas of road. Furthermore, there seems to be an obsession with technology as a method of law enforcement – I realise robot cameras are a lot cheaper than a live police officer and his car, but do automated systems really address the issues of concern?
Does the government intend to take a more realistic attitude to road use at any point? As an average motorist, I would suggest you take note of the following points:-
a) The vast majority of the public believe the speed limits, particularly on major routes, are unrealistic and out-dated.
b) Most people feel that cameras are there for revenue generation, not safety issues.
c) Dangerous driving, which is NOT synonymous with speeding, despite dubious assertions from evangelists such as Mr. Brunstrom, is of far more concern to the public, than high speeds per se.
d) People feel safe in modern cars, and drive at speeds relative to their feeling of well-being. (Legislation will struggle to change that.)
e) Road engineering would be a much more effective way of preventing accidents – e.g. re-siting lamp posts, road signs etc., well away from roadsides, to prevent cars hitting them, safer surfaces etc. That would bring down casualty figures.
f) Separate pedestrians from cars – use footbridges instead of crossings, railings next to busy trunk roads in urban areas – it costs money, but it’s OUR money, not the government’s, isn’t it? All the tax revenue from transport could be used to make roads and driving safer for all users.
g) Speed bumps, and other traffic “calming” measures, serve far more as a challenge to motorists, than a deterrent. Most people will try to drive around them, go as fast as possible over them, speed up between them, and do whatever to prevent impedance to their journey. YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THIS BEHAVIOUR – not as long as people do not see the sense of your policies, and as long as your policies do not concur with the wishes of the electorate.
h) Gentle warnings, e.g. the illuminated sign warning people of their speed as they enter built up areas, ARE very effective, and have the benefit of working with the population, not seeking to punish. We are generally responsible people out here, not criminal idiots, and I think we deserve to be consulted, and treated with respect, on issues which affect our daily lives, don’t you?
i) Not every accident is the fault of the car user. Pedestrians can be, and often are, thoughtless and arrogant towards cars, cyclists rarely obey traffic law, and can put themselves in trouble as a result (ignoring red lights, cycling on pavements to avoid traffic etc.)
I also take issue with your contention that the government is indulging in a coherent policy for transport. Looking at road expenditure figures for the last 10 years, shows that expenditure increased each year from 1990 – 1994, and has reduced every year thereafter. It is now LOWER than the 1990 figure (3073 million, versus 3828 million). Given that retail price index figures shrink the actual expenditure further, how is this a “policy for transport”? It also seems, from the figures that it took several rail disasters to stimulate any significant increase in rail investment, with the only major investment appearing in 2000.
The truth is that this government has lost sight of the fundamental issue of governing with the consent of the electorate. We are treated as inconsequential bumpkins, and alienated from the process of government, and make no mistake, the attitude of Mr. Blair and the rest of the current incumbents, is seen by ordinary people like me as aloof and sneering. Your governance is out of touch with the majority wishes, and because of this, you are resorting to dubious, undemocratic tactics. By not carrying the population with you by persuasion, you are forced into finding a punishment to subjugate the beliefs of the majority. That is why Canada has scrapped all its speed cameras – because the enlightened regime there saw that it was driving a wedge between Police/Government and public.
If you are really interested in road safety, start spending some of the huge tax revenue you take from us, on road engineering issues. That would be a permanent and welcome solution to accident blackspots. It won’t gather any revenue though.
I would be very grateful, if you would take the time to explain to me, the details of, and motivation for, the current government’s anti-car agenda. I am a moderately intelligent person, and would appreciate a reasoned reply, rather than an extension of your propaganda.
Yours sincerely,
>> Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 20th November 14:54
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff