Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Bus Network Reduced and Shared Space Schemes

Posted on by
Reply

Transport for London (TfL) have published plans that will reduce bus services on 33 routes in London. This will particularly apply to underused services in central London which are alleged to contribute to traffic congestion and poor air quality.

The 33 routes represent only 6% of London’s bus routes and in some cases the route is simply being shortened. Another reason for the reduction is that bus usage has been dropping lately and there is the issue that while the deficit on TfLs budget is rising, buses are still massively subsidised. This is surely a sensible step to rationalise the bus network. If you might be affected by these changes, go here for a public consultation on them: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/central-london/?cid=central-london-bus-consultation

In July the Government announced a moratorium on new “shared space” schemes. That followed concerns in the responses to a public consultation on the Accessibility Action Plan. However they have now made it clear that this ban was not intended to apply to new housing developments or streets with low traffic levels.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

National Road Pricing a Step Closer, while NO2 Impact in Doubt

Posted on by
Reply

The likely proliferation of Clean Air Zones (CAZs) in many of the UK’s cities with many of them introducing charging systems for non-compliant vehicles will lead to the widespread adoption of camera systems for enforcement. That is how the London Congestion Charge and the expanded ULEZ which will cover most of London is being enforced. In other words, cameras everywhere.

One inconvenience for drivers would have been the complexity of paying the charges if local councils all operated their own systems. This is already a problem in London where there is no common registration and auto-payment system for the Congestion/ULEZ system and the Dartford Crossing on the M25. But the Government have already anticipated this according to a report in Local Transport Today who were told that the Government is setting up a central payment system to support the local authorities. It seems that local authorities will still have a role in enforcement however – that probably means they will be able to retain the profits they can make from fines which will of course make such systems even more attractive than they would otherwise be.

As we said in our recent press release announcing the publication of the truth about air pollution and vehicles, the prime objective [from attacks on allegedly polluting vehicles] often appears to be simply the desire to extract money from car drivers and other vehicle users. Local authorities will perceive this as a godsend to solve their budget problems.

A national system of collecting payment for local CAZs does of course mean that introducing a national road pricing system would be very easy – just need to put up lots of cameras. Indeed with most of the major conurbations covered by CAZ and charging systems, that’s what we will have in place and ready to use for wider purposes.

There is strong public resistance to road pricing. But you can see the way the wind is blowing on this subject. You’ll know when it happens when the current air pollution legal limits are met but the enforcement stays in place or is extended to lower emission vehicles. Anyone wish to take a bet on that?

NO2 Impact in Doubt

One of the reasons why the Government has mandated CAZs for many cities is the failure to comply with current legal limits on NO2 (nitrogen dioxide). That gas was judged to have a major impact on life expectancy from past scientific studies even though it is difficult to separate out the impact of NO2 from other pollutants such as particulates. Now COMEAP, the Government sponsored authority on this subject, have published a report that questions the impact of NO2 with committee members taking varied views on whether it has any impact on health at all. The committee settled on an estimate that reducing NO2 by 1 μg/m3 would increase life expectancy by around 2 to 5 days, but some committee members fundamentally disagreed on even that calculation. See the COMEAP report here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734799/COMEAP_NO2_Report.pdf for details.

It would seem that Government policy is being driven by dubious or uncertain science. But drivers on the roads of major cities will be facing big cost increases as a result.

Meanwhile Birmingham’s CAZ is shown as being poor value for money based on an economic appraisal by the local Council. Even taking into account the health and environmental benefits of £38 million over ten years, the costs imposed on drivers and vehicle owners results in overall negative costs of minus £122 million as a “net present value”. So just as with the extended ULEZ in London, we are seeing decisions being taken to pursue hopelessly unjustifiable attacks on air pollution.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Lewisham 20 MPH Limit Failing

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Lewisham introduced a borough-wide 20 mph speed limit in 2016 – apart from a few major roads. But not surprisingly it is failing to change drivers’ behaviour who continue to use their intelligence to drive at what they consider an appropriate and safe speed. As a Council report says “As the general look and feel of the roads has not changed many drivers continue to drive at the old 30 mph limit”.

The Council report also says that speed “reductions have been relatively small” which is similar to other signed-only schemes. So they now want to spend £1.2 million on a number of measures to enforce the 20 limits. That may include speed humps, chicanes, build-outs and speed cameras, although they have not firmed up exactly what measures would be used and on which roads. Roads likely to be targeted are Downham Way, Brockley Road and Southend Lane.

They intend to progress those proposals despite the fact that they only have preliminary figures for speed reduction and no data at all on the resulting impact on personal injury accidents. Nor are they bothering to wait for a Government commissioned study of the effectiveness of 20 mph speed limit zones.

Neither is there any cost/benefit justification for these proposals. Slowing traffic costs money in the wasted time of vehicle drivers/passengers. It also creates more air pollution because vehicles driven at slower speeds cause more.

Lewisham are clearly one of those boroughs dominated by anti-car policies and without any consideration of what is rational or sensible. You can read the Council’s report here: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s59363/Lewisham%20borough%20wide%2020mph%20speed%20limit%20update.pdf

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

 

Woolwich Ferry Closed

Posted on by
Reply

The Woolwich Ferry has been closed pending replacement by two new ferry boats. The piers need adapting to take the new boats which have more capacity than the old ones. It was clear that the three old boats needed replacing because they used to regularly break down after many years of service. It is hoped the new boats will be in service in the New Year.

The alternative ways to cross the Thames are the Blackwall Tunnel, the Dartford Crossing or if you are walking the Greenwich Foot Tunnel (cycling not permitted).

I do recall taking the kids for a trip on the Woolwich Ferry on a boxing day many years ago as a change from using the Blackwall Tunnel. The driver of a car in front of me accidentally locked himself out of his vehicle, as one could easily do in those days. I envisaged being stuck on the ferry for some time as vehicles were crammed in as tight as possible. But another Ford car driver on the ferry tried his car key and it unlocked the vehicle. Car security systems have improved somewhat since then!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Air Quality and Vehicles – The Truth

Posted on by
1

We have been very concerned of late with the misinformation that has been spread by the national media about the impact of air pollution from vehicles on the health of the population. We believe it is not a major health crisis but simply a major health scare fed to a gullible public by a few politicians and by journalists wanting a story.

The promotion of such stories has also led to Government over-reaction and a number of local councils proposing “Clean Air Zone” schemes aimed at restricting some vehicles from entering some roads, or charging them extra to do so in the name of reducing pollution. London is in the forefront of charging drivers using pollution as an excuse (e.g. from the ULEZ), but many other cities are planning similar schemes.

The prime objective often appears to be simply the desire to extract money from car drivers and other vehicle users.

We have now published a full analysis of the issues that actually gives the truth about the claims made for air pollution, and rebuts many of the allegations. It can be downloaded from here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/_files/ugd/8ec181_ab00306f347f4046b6a950cdcaa2cdc6.pdf

Is there actually a public health crisis? The simple answer is NO. The evidence does not support such claims.

In reality air quality has been steadily improving and will continue to do so from technical improvements to vehicles. Meanwhile life expectancy has been increasing. There is no public health crisis!

Life expectancy might be improved slightly, for example by a few days if all air pollution was removed. But air pollution does not just come from vehicles but from many other sources of human activity such as heating, industrial processes, farming, building, cooking and domestic wood burners. Only about 50% comes from transport. The air outside is typically cleaner than in people’s own homes or in offices and that is where they spend most of the time.

Removing all air pollution would be economically very expensive and leave us with no transport (buses, trains, aeroplanes or cars) and also stop all deliveries of food and other goods. You would not want to live in such a world.

We give all the evidence on our claims above in the aforementioned paper.

But we do accept that air pollution does need to be improved, particularly in certain locations, and we recognise public concern about it. However we argue that measures taken to improve matters should be proportionate and cost effective. There needs to be a proper cost/benefit analysis before imposing restrictions or charges.

There are many measures that can be used to reduce vehicle emissions without restricting motorists or imposing major extra costs on them.

There is certainly no need to panic over air pollution!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Cycling in London, and Cycle Passing Limits

Posted on by
Reply

There are a number of cyclists who avidly read this blog. Many of them are critical of the issues I have raised about the standards of cycling in London in a number of articles. It was very amusing to read an article in the Financial Times last Saturday (29/9/2018) by Katie Martin. She is an FT writer and she gives the views of someone who has been cycling to the office for the last nine years.

She said cyclists would be wrong to assume the main threat was cars, and she highlights two others as of importance: the road itself and other cyclists.

Potholes are a major menace to cyclists and she points out that unlike for vehicle drivers, potholes are not just a route to a repair shop, they are a risk to life and limb. I am sure that all road users will agree that potholes have become a major problem as expenditure on road maintenance and proper resurfacing has been cut back by local councils.

But she says an under appreciated risk is other cyclists who are “comfortably the diciest fellow users of the road”. She describes most of them as “infuriatingly rubbish and some would struggle to pass a primary school proficiency test”. She reports that they run red lights, don’t signal before they swing into your path, don’t use lights in the dark and barge in front of you at traffic lights. There is much more in the same vein.

She also criticises pedestrians and car passengers who open doors without looking, but she does not wish to put off anyone from cycling! You can read the full article here: https://www.ft.com/content/b6ffcb9c-c239-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7 . I hope she does not get too many abusive comments from her fellow cyclists.

Cycle Passing Limit and Disclosure of Evidence

One correspondent has written to us about the fact that he received a Notice of Intended Prosecution about a claimed offence of passing a cyclist too closely in North Wales, which he denies. The police are claiming to have evidence based on a headcam worn by a cyclist but are refusing to disclose the video evidence or even a transcript of a statement given by the cyclist.

Firstly, headcam or dashcam footage can be used as evidence in criminal cases if some conditions are met although the widespread use of cameras does raise the question of privacy. There is effectively none at present on the public roads.

As regards disclosure of evidence, the police certainly need to disclose the evidence if they intend to pursue a prosecution. See this article on Pepipoo for more information on that subject: http://www.pepipoo.com/Disclosure.htm . Perhaps the Police are relying on people accepting a Fixed Penalty Notice rather than going to court to challenge the case, but that would be most dubious.

As regards the distance that vehicle users should allow when overtaking a cyclist, the Highway Code says the following: “Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car” and “Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make”. This is somewhat unspecific as some drivers might feel they need not give much space when overtaking another vehicle at slow speeds.

One can see that any prosecution might be difficult based on those parts of the Highway Code. So cyclists have called for more specific limits, e.g. 1.5 metres, or perhaps 1.0 metre on roads with lower speed limits. Ireland proposed to introduce such a law but it was abandoned after realisation that it would create legal difficulties. The Department for Transport is currently considering the matter in the UK.

But in this writer’s view, any specific limit is not sensible. In central London, where streets are narrow, and traffic speeds are low, giving 1.5 metres would not be easy and might simply lead to encroachment onto the opposite carriageway thus creating other road safety risks. Likewise on some of the narrow country roads in North Wales. A wide limit on high-speed dual carriageways or other A-roads may be quite appropriate but equating it to the road speed limit rather than the speed of a vehicle and its size makes no sense. Larger vehicles that create much bigger back drafts are more of a risk to cyclists and drivers of those need to allow more space.

Perhaps the Highway Code should be reworded to try and clarify what is a reasonable passing distance but any specific limit seems unwise because it very much depends on the circumstances. We will respond to any public consultation on this issue if one appears.

In the meantime, it seems some Police Forces are using “Careless Driving” offences to try and enforce specific passing distances and are even offering “education courses” as an alternative to taking the points and fines. That is much the same way as they offer speed awareness courses which we have campaigned against.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Number Plates for Cyclists

Posted on by
4

It was Ken Livingstone who first advocated that cyclists should have number plates on their bikes. That was in response to poor behaviour by cyclists and a complaint to him on a radio phone-in about cycling on pavements. That was back in 2006 but he did not progress the proposal.

Since then cycling behaviour in London has got considerably worse. But a south London school is going to make its pupils display a number plate. This is in Carshalton in South London. Headmaster Amit Amin said that pupils have been cycling in a way “that endangers themselves and others”. Cycling pupils will be given a number plate which they must display when riding to and from school in future.

It brought a rather predictable response from a spokesperson for Cycling UK who suggested it might deter cycling by “making it more difficult”. Cyclists seem to oppose more regulation of cycling in any form. Note that other schools already have rules about what pupils should wear when cycling – for example helmets. That is for safety reasons for themselves but rules that provide more safety to others do not seem totally unreasonable and it is difficult to see why having to display a number would deter anyone from cycling.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

 

Blanket 20 MPH Speed Limit in Richmond

Posted on by
3

The London Borough of Richmond is proposing to introduce a speed limit of 20 mph on all roads in the borough with two exceptions. The only exceptions will be the A205 (South Circular) and A316 which are TfL controlled roads.

The claim is that this will reduce the number and severity of road accidents but that is contrary to the evidence that has been appearing on that issue – see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2018/09/15/20-mph-zones-are-a-waste-of-money-or-worse/

This will be a “signed-only” scheme so it is very unlikely to have any significant impact on traffic speeds (typically 1 mph on other such schemes which nobody can notice) and even less impact on casualty figures.

A public consultation is now open where you can give your views on this proposal. See: https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/news/press_office/older_news/september_2018/consultation_on_borough_wide_20mph_limit_launched

Please make sure you respond as soon as possible!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Croydon Wants Your Views

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Croydon want your views on how they can improve transport in the borough. Croydon is now a notoriously anti-car council with the 20 mph wide area schemes that were a waste of money, and road closures outside schools that will have little benefit but generate a lot of inconvenience for residents and visitors.

Go here to complete their survey:

https://getinvolved.croydon.gov.uk/kms/elab.aspx?CampaignId=735

The deadline for comments is the 30th September so get your comments in now!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Railway System Review, and Renationalisation – Why Bother?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week Chris Grayling, Transport Secretary, announced a review of the privatised rail system. That follows the recent problems with new timetables where the regulator concluded that “nobody took charge”. Today John McDonnell, the Labour Party’s shadow chancellor said that he could renationalise the railways within five years if Labour wins the next election – it’s already a manifesto commitment. Perhaps he thinks he can solve the railway’s problems by doing so but this writer suggests the problem is technology rather than management, although cost also comes into the equation.

The basic problem is that the railways are built on inflexible and expensive old technology. There has never been a “timetable” problem on the roads because there are no fixed timetables – folks just do their own thing and travel when they want to do so.

Consider the rail signalling system – an enormously expensive infrastructure to ensure trains don’t run into each other and to give signals to train drivers. We do of course have a similar system at junctions on roads – they are called traffic lights. But they operate automatically and are relatively cheap. Most are not even linked in a network as train signals are required to be.

Trains run on tracks so they are extremely vulnerable to breakdowns of trains and damage to tracks – even snow, ice or leaves on the line cause disruption – who ever heard of road vehicles being delayed by leaves? A minor problem on a train track, often to signals, can quickly cause the whole line or network to come to a halt. Failing traffic signals on roads typically cause only slight delays and vehicles can drive around any broken-down cars or lorries.

The cost of changes to a rail line are simply enormous, and the cost of building them also. For example, the latest estimate for HS2 – the line from London to Birmingham is more than £80 billion. The original M1 was completed in 1999 at a cost of £26 million. Even allowing for inflation, and some widening and upgrading since then the total cost is probably less than £1 billion.

Changes to railway lines can be enormously expensive. For example, the cost of rebuilding London Bridge station to accommodate more trains was about £1 billion. These astronomic figures simply do not arise when motorways are revised or new service stations constructed.

Why invest more in a railway network when roads are cheaper to build and maintain, and a lot more flexible in use? At present the railways have to be massively subsidised by the Government out of taxation – about £4 billion per annum according to Wikipedia, or about 7.5p per mile of every train journey you take according to the BBC. Meanwhile road transport more than pays for itself and contributes billions to general taxation in addition from taxes on vehicle users.

So here’s a suggestion: scrap using this old technology for transport and invest more in roads. Let the railways shrink in size to where they are justifiable, or let them disappear as trams did for similar reasons – inflexible and expensive in comparison with buses.

No need to renationalise them at great expense. Spend the money instead on building a decent road network which is certainly not what we have at present.

Do you think that railways are more environmentally friendly? Electric trains may be but with electric road vehicles now becoming commonplace, that justification will no longer apply in a few years’ time, if not already.

Just like some people love old transport modes – just think canals and steam trains – the attachment to old technology in transport is simply irrational as well as being very expensive. Road vehicles take you from door-to-door at lower cost, with no “changing trains” or waiting for the next one to arrive. No disruption caused by striking guards or drivers as London commuters have seen so frequently.

In summary building and managing a road network is cheaper and simpler. It just needs a change of mindset to see the advantages of road over rail. But John McDonnell wants to take us back to 1948 when the railways were last nationalised. Better to invest in the roads than the railways.

It has been suggested that John McDonnell is a Marxist but at times he has denied it. Those not aware of the impact of Marxism on political thought would do well to read a book I recently perused which covered the impact of the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia circa 1919. In Tashkent they nationalised all pianos as owning a piano was considered “bourgeois”. They were confiscated and given to schools. One man who had his piano nationalised lost his temper and broke up the piano with an axe. He was taken to goal and then shot (from the book Mission to Tashkent by Col. F.M. Bailey).

Sometimes history can be very revealing. The same mentality that wishes to spend money on public transport such as railways as opposed to private transport systems shows the same defects.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.