Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Calls to Scrap Single Justice Procedure

Posted on by
Reply

Up to 60% of criminal cases are now handled by courts using the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). These are mainly cases where no plea has been entered for unknown reasons and the case is dealt with by magistrates (typically only one) in secret. The defendant is not present and there is no public access to a hearing which can last as little as one minute.

Such cases are for those of speeding offences and other motoring offences, non-payment of television licence fees and truancy. The Magistrates’ Association – representing Justices of the Peace – has called for an overhaul of the system which has resulted in vulnerable people being prosecuted without being present or having any legal representation. Letters of mitigation are often ignored.

The Ministry of Justice is apparently considering some changes.

Comment: this is an example where justice has been undermined by the desire to save money. If you get prosecuted for a motoring offence make sure you enter a plea and go to court to explain any mitigating circumstances if you are pleading guilty. Plead not guilty if you think the prosecution is unreasonable. You do not need legal representation to do this.

See these Telegraph articles for more information:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/25/magistrates-secret-court-for-speeding-and-licence-fees

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/single-justice-procedure-magistrates-courts-secret-chalk

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Bid to Scrap ULEZ Talked Out

Posted on by
2

Last week a private members Bill introduced in Parliament by Gareth Johnson M.P. failed to progress as it was “talked out” by Labour politicians. The bill would have given the Secretary of State for Transport powers to set the boundaries of the ULEZ in London – see https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3555. This would have given clear powers to central Government to halt the ULEZ expansion as recently happened.

The Government says it supported the bill. Will it bring it back into Parliament? It should certainly do so. It is time the Government took powers away from Sadiq Khan who is only interested in raising taxes to fund his own empire.

There was never any justification for expanding the ULEZ to outer London. Tory Mayoral candidate Susan Hall says she will scrap the expansion while the Reform candidate Howard Cox says he will scrap the ULEZ scheme altogether. Some tactical voting may be required to ensure Sadiq Khan is ejected in May.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

London Assembly Report on Road User Charging

Posted on by
2

The Greater London Authority have published a report on road user charging (or “pay per mile” as it is known), after a public consultation. They got over 3,000 responses to the consultation which is unusually high and you can read the report from the Transport Committee here: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-03/Future%20Road%20User%20Charging%20in%20London%20report.pdf

The Committee emphasised the need for a simple system if a road user charging scheme was implemented. This committee was chaired by Sian Berry (Green Party) so the result is not surprising but the Conservatives submitted a minority report.,

You can read all the consultation responses by going to the bottom of this page: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-work/london-assembly-publications/road-user-charging-london . There is clearly an enormous amount of opposition to any road charging scheme in London.

We did submit a response to the consultation which can be read here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/_files/ugd/8ec181_718f6a0e18ae4c26a3e4a353b5f70a44.pdf .

The Conservative Party have said this in response to the report: “OUR VIEW ON PAY PER MILE: We want to be very clear: The City Hall Conservatives do not support – and will never support – any London Mayor introducing a pay per mile system as an additional tax on Londoners. Sadiq Khan seems to be exploring ever more creative ways to squeeze money out of Londoners, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Implementing Pay Per Mile would be unfair to those who rely on their cars, unfair to those who spent thousands upgrading their vehicles specifically to comply with the ULEZ, and unfair on the pockets of every Londoner”.

That’s probably the view of many Londoners and shows how the Conservatives are gearing up to win the popular vote in outer London.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Crackdown on anti-driver road schemes and blanket 20mph limits

Posted on by
1

The Department for Transport has published draft statutory guidance for councils on low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), setting out that they must gain buy-in from local residents, businesses and emergency services when considering implementing new LTN schemes. The new guidance will come into force this summer. For details see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-anti-driver-road-schemes-and-blanket-20mph-limits-to-put-local-consent-first

The change in policy is supported by a report on LTNs and these comments: “While the review showed only a quarter of people understood the benefits of LTNs, it also flagged concerns over the impact on disabled residents, high numbers of penalty charge notices, the cost of LTN schemes and even concerns from emergency services that delays to crews caught up in LTNs could “potentially risk lives”. The new guidance aims to prevent councils having to reverse poorly-implemented or locally unpopular schemes – as with recently removed LTNs at Jesmond, Newcastle and Streatham Wells, London”. For the report see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/low-traffic-neighbourhood-review .

A consultation will also be launched this summer on measures including the removal of local authorities’ access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data to enforce such schemes by camera. This would put a stop to councils generating income from camera enforced schemes and is surely to be welcomed.

The DfT have also published new guidance on setting local speed limits – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits . This looks quite reasonable but will TfL or local councils actually pay attention to it? That seems unlikely as they have recently introduced 20 limits on quite inappropriate roads in the name of road safety without any evidence to support their views.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Chislehurst War Memorial – A Solution?

Posted on by
Reply

There have been repeated calls over the years for changes to the Chislehurst War Memorial junction so as to improve facilities for pedestrians. These demands have to date been rejected because of the impact on traffic flows on the high-volume traffic on Bromley Road. But the Council have now come up with a proposal for an additional signal-controlled  pedestrian crossing on the A222 near the junction with Kemnal Road.

See Agenda item 11d in this committee report for details: https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/documents/g7686/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2013-Mar-2024%2019.00%20Environment%20and%20Community%20Services%20Policy%20Developm.pdf?T=10

My comments: 

It may help some pedestrians such as those disabled but I suspect most will not bother to walk to the new crossing but continue to cross at the war memorial traffic lights. I also have concerns about the impact on traffic flows on Royal Parade and those crossing to/from the The Shaw and Kemnal Road. It’s also an expensive solution at over £200,000 when the road safety benefit may be small.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The True Cost of Rail Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

The TaxPayers Alliance have published a good report on the subsidies to rail fares paid for by the Government out of our taxes. For example they say “Forecasts indicate that rail services will be subsidised by £11 billion in the financial year 2022-23”; and “The average rail fare in 2022-23 will be £6.12 per journey. An additional £7.51 in subsidy is required to make up the full cost of that journey”.

In summary rail users don’t pay anyway near enough for their journeys. The rail system is archaic technology with frequent breakdowns. For example, yesterday lines out of Waterloo were closed most of the day when a single train derailed after hitting something on the tracks. Commuters were severely inconvenienced with very few alternative routes. Compare that with the road system which can quickly recover from temporary disruptions.

The rail network is enormously expensive to maintain and is not getting any cheaper. The Government continues to pump money into the archaic rail system instead of improving our roads. Most of the subsidies come out of our taxes when most taxpayers do not even use the rail system.

See the full report here: https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/briefing_the_true_cost_of_rail_subsidies

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The Iniquity of ULEZ Enforcement

Posted on by
3

The Daily Telegraph has published a good article on the problems associated with enforcement of the ULEZ scheme. It particularly affects foreign drivers. To quote from the article:

“It isn’t just Londoners or even British people who are being stung by the new scheme. Many European motorists have been handed extortionately high fines – some as high as £11,000 – due to errors in their paperwork. These drivers (usually of compliant vehicles) neglected to add their information to a data portal run by the enforcement agency Euro Parking Collection, an omission that TfL seems to think merits a five-figure financial penalty”.

All ULEZ and CAZ schemes suffer from the same problems. They rely on technology working and drivers being aware of the regulations, neither of which is often true. And enforcement raises more money than the legal charges so there is no incentive on operators to ensure they are working properly.

The ULEZ system and all the associated charging and fine structure should be removed, along with Sadiq Khan and the senior management of TfL who have enabled this money-making scheme to be imposed.

See Telegraph article here:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/29/ulez-sadiq-khan-london-ultra-low-emission-zone/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Record Fines for 20 MPH Speeding

Posted on by
2

The Times has reported under a headline that there are “Record fines for 20mph speeding despite PM’s pledge to scrap zones”. Motorists received more than 216,000 fines for travelling between 20mph and 30mph in 2023, four times more than in 2018. London is a particular problem area. The Met alone has issued 595,000 of the fines — the equivalent of one ticket for every four cars registered in London — amid a crackdown on speeding initiated by Sadiq Khan as Mayor.

There is no correlation between lower speed limits and reduction in road casualties. So why is this campaign to lower speeds being pursued? To finance the police is one reason as they do benefit from speed awareness course fees despite denials.

But it’s also just a symptom of the general attack on the use of private vehicles by those like cyclists who would like them removed from our roads or forced to drive no faster than a cyclist.

How do we get sanity returned to our roads? Voting Mayor Khan out in May might help.

Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/35635115-22b8-438e-bce5-fae72b20723d?shareToken=005028e1f6f33aa934779508d4be2bed

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Comments on the By-election Results

Posted on by
2

Labour might be celebrating the wins in Kingswood and Wellingborough but apart from the fact that by-elections are rarely good forecasts of general election results there are some things worth pointing out.

In reality the Labour vote did not increase, but the Tory vote dropped because it was eroded by support for Reform candidates. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have failed to retain the support of right leaning supporters when Reform have adopted the policies that attract traditional conservative voters. Such as much tighter control on immigration (the Conservatives have talked about this but action has been insipid and ineffective).

But Reform have some way to go to win seats because unfortunately many people vote the same way as they always have without looking at manifestos or the historic track records of the candidates. Democracy in the UK has become sclerotic because of those factors. We do need proportional representation but that is as far away as ever.

For example, look at the winning Labour candidate in Kingswood – Damian Egan. He was an Irish immigrant to Bristol but was elected as a Lewisham Councillor and then Mayor of Lewisham. His track record there included strong support of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) which has created strong opposition from those opposed to road closures which he ignored. But he did not talk about that in Kingswood but more on the deficiencies of the NHS.

Reform are attracting good candidates and building local representation but they still have a way to go to obtain mass support. They and the Labour party have won protest votes in these by-elections but it takes time and money to win general elections.

Note: I support both Reform and Conservative Parties but the Conservatives need to be much more effective in governing the country if they are to win my future vote.  

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Contesting A20 Speed Limit Fines

Posted on by
4

There are clearly many thousands of drivers who have been caught by the drastically reduced speed limit on the A20 near Sidcup. This was reduced from 70 to 40 because of flooding when there is heavy rain which caused at least one fatal accident due to aquaplaning. The new 40 limit has been enforced with a speed camera but based on posts to a Facebook group many people were unaware of the change and have received NIPs. Sometimes several in a few days and although some are eligible for speed awareness courses, many are not and risk losing their licence.

Why don’t people go to court to contest the fines? This is an easy thing to do and you can represent yourself. Signage is clearly inadequate and easy to miss if you are joining the road from the Crittalls Corner roundabout for example.

I have in the past represented myself in magistrate courts to defend against two alleged motoring offences and won both cases. You will find magistrates are sympathetic to well argued pleas from personal individuals. Magistrates have wide discretion to dismiss cases that appear unfair or unreasonable.

If enough people defended these cases in court, then the court system would become overloaded with trivial prosecutions and the authorities would think again about these cases.

Note: ignore the fact that someone put up a false 50 speed limit sign on that stretch of road. That’s irrelevant.

There is more information on representing yourself in court here: https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.