Category Archives: Air Pollution

Minicabs and Rickshaws Under Attack

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson is planning to cap the number of minicabs in London. Along with the growth of usage of cab hailing apps such as Uber, the use of minicabs has been rising rapidly in the last couple of years. This is allegedly contributing to worse traffic congestion.  For example the number of licensed minicabs has grown by 20% in the last year to reach 78,000.

A Uber spokesperson was quoted in the FT  as saying “It would means higher prices, fewer jobs and would actually result in more congestion as people resort to using their own car again in the City”.

The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, who represent black cab drivers, supported the move. They have been very critical of the rise of minicabs, and pursued a court action to challenge the legality of the use of booking apps.

Boris Johnson is also looking to ban rickshaws which clog up streets in the evenings in Central London and are a potential hazard, but does not currently have the legal powers to do so. He is looking to the Government to assist on that.

Meanwhile the head of Britain’s largest minicab company, Addison-Lee, has attacked the new licensing regime for taxis that will apply from 2018 (as part of the plans for the ultra-low emission zone). This requires all taxis to be zero-emissions capable by 2018.  Mr Griffin of Addison-Lee says the vehicle types required to meet this legislation do not exist – which in essence probably means electric only vehicles, not hybrids.

Comment: if a limit is placed on London minicab licenses, surely they will just be based outside of London and drive in when required. It is not clear how this legislation can be easily enforced unless cabs from outside London are to be banned. Of course this is one of the unintended consequences of the London Congestion Tax (a.k.a. “Charge”), which encouraged people to switch to buses, taxis and cycling. All three create more congestion and the first two are usually more polluting than private cars  – which is why we still have a NOX problem.

Roger Lawson

Barnet Emissions Based Permit Parking

Posted on by
Reply

Barnet Council have finally agreed to pay the £155,000 costs of the legal action brought by David Attfield and his supporters against proposed new parking charges. The council lost the Judicial Review action in the High Court after it was ruled that increases to charges across controlled parking zones (CPZs) in Barnet in order to pay for other transport projects were unlawful. Let us hope other London councils take note of this case. It reinforces the previous legal precedent that all councillors should be aware of – namely that you cannot use on-street parking schemes to generate revenue, i.e. there should not be an intended surplus.

But Barnet has not given up on increasing charges. They are bringing in one of those hated “emissions based permit parking schemes”, i.e. the more emissions your car makes the higher the charge even though no cars emit emissions when they are parked, and the probability of such a charge having any impact on emissions in the borough is very low because it only affects cars parked in CPZs and not those parked off road or elsewhere. This was clearly demonstrated in the London Borough of Richmond but councillors pushed ahead regardless. The ruling LibDem council and its leader were subsequently ejected by the electorate as the measure proved very unpopular (see http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Richmond.htm for the ABD’s past campaign in that borough).

Roger Lawson

No End To, Rather An Intensification of the War on the Motorist

Posted on by
Reply

Drivers had been promised no re-emergence of moves to impose road user charging under the current administration. But by stealth, buried in the bowels of the Infrastructure Bill (currently making its way through Parliament) are measures which: (a) facilitate the privatisation the Highways Agency, and (b) pave the way for the sell-off of the UK road network to private interests, and the subsequent imposition of road user charging.

The threat of a mandatory imposition (by EU diktat) of the fitment of Black Boxes remains. Big Brother external control and monitoring of your driving.

The Government is active in supporting Driverless Car technology: the ultimate extension of external control – you become a passenger in your own vehicle – but still responsible for it if the technology fouls up! (Even Toyota have distanced themselves from this particular piece of crass idiocy).

The much-publicised Motorway Speed Limit increase has been quietly ditched – another example of a commitment made but retracted. A raft of major road speed limit reductions were being propose, ostensibly due to EU clean air diktats; when it was government itself that retarded the decline in emissions: by (a) discouraging catalysed petrol vehicle sales in favour of lower CO2-, but higher NOx-, SO2- and particulate-producing diesel; and (of much greater significance), by (b) persistently failing to regulate adequately the emissions of the worst polluters: public service, and older goods vehicles. Modern private diesel cars have very low emissions – particularly those with DPFs (Diesel Particulate Filters).

Speed Camera Partnerships effectively remain totally unregulated. This is despite incontrovertible evidence that the casualty-reducing benefits claimed for their “electronic highwaymen” prove to be non-existent after Regression To The Mean is taken into account. Of course, turkeys would never vote for Christmas; and instead of seeking reductions in prosecution numbers by lobbying for sensibly-set speed limits, the Partnerships have now switched focus to try to divert as many drivers as possible away from accepting fixed penalties and onto “Speed Awareness” courses – from which both the Partnership and the course organisers each take a tasty rake-off. The Shakespearean words: “Rotten”, “State” and “Denmark” come to mind…….

Ill-informed local politicians are promoting the proliferation of 20mph limit zones (with a few notable exceptions like Worthing – due to overwhelming public opposition ). This is despite the road safety evidence being damningly negative; with deaths and serious injuries consistently being worse than those in comparable nearby areas where 30mph has been retained.

All these developments have to be countered at both local and national levels if we are to prevent things getting markedly worse for drivers than is already the case. You can help by joining in and making your voice, views and opinions heard.