Motability Scheme Being Abused

The Government is keen to save £5 billion per year on disability benefits. Will they achieve it? No chance in my opinion when they ignore such abuses as have crept into the Motability scheme which provides vehicles for disabled people – including tax and insurance.  

There are now over 850,000 cars on British roads under the Motability scheme, a number that is growing by around 15% per year. But the biggest concern? Many of these cars are not being driven by the people they were intended for.

It is claimed that in many cases, the disabled person never even drives the car – it’s a convenient loophole for others to exploit. With three named drivers allowed on each Motability car, it’s all too easy for families to use the vehicle while the original claimant rarely, if ever, gets behind the wheel. The qualifications for a Motability vehicle are similar to those for PIP – including ADHD, anxiety, and agoraphobia.

See https://spearhead.news/2025/03/17/exposed-the-motability-car-scheme-scandal-costing-british-taxpayers-billions/ for more information.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Petition Rejected and Electric Car Market

The Climate Change Act

The Government has rejected a Parliamentary petition calling for repeal of the Climate Change Act. See https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701600 . The Government has rejected this petition with this summary comment: “There is no ‘two-sided’ debate on anthropogenic climate change. The Government’s policy to support ambitious action on climate change reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus”. Meanwhile most of the rest of the world, including the biggest emitters of CO2 continue to ignore it while the UK incurs very substantial costs in trying to meet an impossible target.

The UK population have never had the opportunity to vote on this subject. Why not? I guess the Government does not believe in the wisdom of crowds.

Electric Car Market

The electric car market seems to be rapidly changing. The former market leader of Tesla is no longer in the lead having been overtaken by BYD as the world’s biggest EV seller. German and US manufacturers have also stepped up their game in terms of product features and quality. Where is the UK? Absolutely nowhere with even Jaguar Land Rover backing the wrong horses. To quote the Brown Car Guy “China now produces 70% of the world’s EVs, meaning there’s a buffet of options that are more affordable”.

Some of the decline in Tesla sales has been attributed to Elon Musk’s involvement in politics – even an allegation that he made a Nazi salute which I consider quite ridiculous. Like Donald Trump he seems to be making a positive contribution to US politics to my mind. Anyone who buys a new car based on the political views of someone who only owns about 13% of the company is surely misguided.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Trump’s Changes in the USA

The election of Donald Trump as US President is going to mean some substantial changes to environmental policies which will impact motor vehicle production and usage in the USA. Some of the changes that are being made by executive orders are:

  • Withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, an unrealistic attempt to halt climate change.
  • Declare a national energy emergency which will unlock new powers to suspend certain environmental rules.
  • Begin the repeal of Biden-era regulations on tailpipe pollution from cars and light trucks, which have effectively mandated automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles.

He might also revoke federal support for congestion charging in New York.

Would it not be great if we had similar policies adopted in the UK? Motoring is getting needlessly expensive from tough and expensive regulations that will have minimal impact on the climate or air quality.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Assisted Dying and Transport News 

I was very pleased to see the Assisted Dying Bill passed in the House of Commons. I have supported the Dignity in Dying organisation (formerly VES) and their campaigns for over 30 years  – see https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/  . When I want to leave this world I want to go quickly and without judges or doctors interfering in my decision, or the necessity to go to Switzerland. 

I don’t want to live to 100 as my mother did. 85 years is long enough for anyone to complete their life’s ambitions as quality of life declines rapidly thereafter. I am ready to go anytime now but the Assisted Dying Bill might frustrate that ambition. There is no need for anyone to die in pain. The Assisted Dying Bill may not be perfect as it stands but there is plenty of time to improve it.

Opposition to the Bill is irrational and based on lack of knowledge of how such legislation works, and well, in other countries.

New Transport Secretary

The other big political news was the resignation of Louise Haigh as Transport Secretary. This arose because she had failed to disclose a past conviction for fraud over the loss of a mobile phone. This seems to have arisen because of a simple mistake and subsequent bad legal advice where she plead guilty.

Her replacement as Transport Secretary is Heidi Alexander, who previously served as Deputy Mayor for Transport in London. During her tenure, from 2018 to 2021, she oversaw the introduction and expansion of the ULEZ scheme, which was unnecessary, and the rollout of 20mph speed limits in London. TfL became a financial basket case during her tenancy. She may have a malign influence on national transport policy. In 2019, she candidly confessed, “I may not have qualifications in transport.” A frank admission given her track record in the role but it is convention to appoint people with no knowledge or experience of the subject to senior government positions. It’s traditional in the UK that amateurs are thought to be better than professionals to take responsibility for major policy and associated budgets. That’s a very silly approach.

Before she left Louise Haigh announced a new National Transport Strategy  – see  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-unveils-her-vision-for-integrated-transport-across-england  . It included a commitment to a ‘people first approach’ to getting people around the country. Recognising that different passengers have different needs, and the quality of transport varies across the country, it will set out how government can support local areas to make all forms of transport work together better. All this is political bullshit in essence which we have seen many times before to no great effect.

It is still unclear what diesel/petrol or hybrid vehicles will be allowed to be sold after 2030, although the media have reported that the Government is having a rethink and is consulting car manufacturers. But it is obvious that UK car and van manufacturing is already facing a cliff edge. Stellantis last week announced it was closing van manufacturing in Luton. Jaguar is suspending production of all cars because their product range is now all-electric and there is simply insufficient demand for such cars.

The requirement for all vehicle manufacturers to have a certain proportion of sales from all-electric vehicles is proving impossible to meet economically. One can see that many people will be keeping petrol vehicles for as long as 20 years so will frustrate this Government policy. Old cars could become quite valuable!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

Book Review – Scared to Death   

One of the books I have been reading lately is “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Richard North. First published some years ago but more recently updated it covers the public scares from BSE to Global Warming including speeding on our roads and why scares are costing us the earth.

To quote from the Introduction: “In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centred on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result, we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die. Salmonella in eggs; listeria in cheese; BSE in beef; dioxins in poultry; the ‘Millennium Bug’;DDT; nitrate in water; vitamin B6; ‘Satanic’ child abuse; lead in petrol and computers; passive smoking; asbestos; SARS; Asian bird flu – the list is seemingly endless.

Indeed, we are currently in the grip of the greatest such fear of all: that of a warming of the world’s climate which, we are officially told, could well put an end to much of civilized life as we know it. The price we have paid for such panics has been immense; most notably the colossal financial costs arising from the means society has chosen to defend itself from these threats. Yet, again and again, we have seen how it eventually emerged that the fear was largely or wholly misplaced. The threat of disaster came to be seen as having been no more than what we call a ‘scare’”.

The book certainly covers the ground well and shows how these scares arise and are promoted by the ignorant. Popular media and even the supposedly responsible press love a “bad news” story that helps their circulation (or their on-line media “hits” that helps their advertising income).

But the financial cost to the public can be enormous with no cost/benefit justification for the chosen solutions to the perceived problems. Indeed in the case of road safety the chosen measures (speed cameras) have not only been financially damaging but have diverted funds from effective road safety measures and meant that the UK no longer has a lead in reducing accidents and deaths (KSIs).

Some of the scares, such as that for AIDS, did turn into a serious problem only the worst outcomes being averted by advances in medical science and simple contrary public health measures. But other scares just disappeared because they turned out to be unreal – such as the Millenium Computer bug. However many millions of dollars and pounds were spent on curing imaginary problems.

One issue I was personally involved with was the “speed kills” issue which has resulted in the proliferation of speed cameras and speed humps. It is covered in Chapter 10 of the book.

As the book says, during the early years of the last century the death rate from road accidents in the UK consistently fell. By 1993 it was below 4,000. Britain’s roads were the safest in Europe. In France and Germany, the annual death toll was over 9,000. In Portugal the death rate was well over three times as high. Then the rate of decline suddenly slowed. Over the next decade the total fall was smaller than in any of the years between 1990 and 1993. On five occasions the yearly figure actually rose. So what had changed? Road safety policy as promoted by the Government changed.

The book says: “Undoubtedly one important factor in the steady fall in the fatal accident rate in earlier decades, despite a doubling in the number of vehicles on Britain’s roads – from 12 million in 1966 to 25 million in 1994 – had been the technical advances that made vehicles themselves much safer. But this could not have explained the slowing in the fall of accidents in the 1990s, when new regulations had made vehicles safer still”.

In reality the automated speed enforcement and reduction in speed limits created a financial incentive for the police to invest in speed cameras, speed awareness courses and enforcement when they had very little impact on road casualties. Over 2 million people are now issued with speeding fines every year in the UK at enormous cost to themselves and a whole industry has been created to support this mistaken policy due to the scare that “speed kills” when excessive speed is one of the less common factors in the cause of road accidents.

Expenditure on road policing and other effective measures to reduce accidents such as local road engineering were reduced in favour of more enforcement by cameras in the hope that would cut accidents when it did not.

See this web page for some of the articles I have written on this subject: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/road-safety

As regards the book “Scared to Death” although the authors have documented well how such scares arise and are promoted by the misinformed they unfortunately have not tackled the issue of how to stop us wasting money on false solutions. But the book should be essential reading for all politicians.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

London Mayor’s Transport Strategy Still Failing

Transport for London (TfL) have published their latest report on transport in London. It claims some success on achieving the goals of Sadiq Khan’s London Transport Strategy but in reality the goal of achieving more “active travel” is simply not being met.

Walking mode share actually fell in 2023 to 26% and although public transport share rose this is a combination of recovery after the covid epidemic as well as throwing money at subsidising buses and London underground where people do not pay economic fares.

See chart below from the report – the full report is obtainable from the link below.

Meanwhile the Mayor has said he is not safe as a “Muslim politician”. It is certainly the case that he is widely hated but I suggest this is not because of his religion but because of his economic policies including raising taxes such as the ULEZ scheme and attacks on private motorists.

The Mayor’s comments just help to increase division and he should leave religion out of politics.

The cover of the new report is shown above and it’s worth noting that it shows someone walking across the road while looking at her phone.  Not a safe practice! She should have been shown using a pedestrian crossing and not using her phone at the same time.

Roger Lawson

TfL Report: https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s22848/Appendix%201%20Delivering%20the%20Mayors%20Transport%20Strategy%20202324%20-%20Draft%20July%202024.pdf

The New Transport Minister

With a change of Government we get a new Transport Minister. Her name is Louise Haigh. It appears she would like to spend more money on rail infrastructure including “nationalisation”  – what is not already effectively nationalised and under Government control.

But there may be more money to fix road potholes also.

More details in this article. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/who-is-new-transport-secretary-louise-haigh-and-what-has-she-said-about-railways-and-roads-05-07-2024/  

Clearly there is already prejudice for rail and against road transport in the usual socialist commitment to public transport which always requires massive financial subsidies.

But at least she does not appear to be a great cycling fan and has said “that she never cycles due to Sheffield’s hills”, but has praised e-bike schemes for making cycling “more accessible”. No doubt she will be persuaded to support “active travel” by civil servants in the Department for Transport in due course when most of us just want to use the quickest, most comfortable and lowest cost transport mode which frequently means a private car.

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.

It’s Decision Time

As I have a postal vote for the General Election, it was time to decide who to vote for. I covered some points from the main party manifestos in previous blog posts. None of those manifestos excited me and I have now read the Reform Party manifesto (or “Our Contract With You” as they call it – see link below).

On Transport they say this:

CRITICAL REFORMS NEEDED IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS: Scrap HS2 Save £25 billion by scrapping the rest of this bloated vanity project. Stop the War on Drivers Legislate to ban ULEZ Clean Air Zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Scrapping Net Zero means no more bans on petrol and diesel cars and no legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars. We will keep the speed limit low where safety is critical. Otherwise, 20 MPH zones will be scrapped. Accelerate Transport Infrastructure Focus on our coastal regions, Wales, the North, and the Midlands. Improve existing rail and road links. Integrated services are critical. Thereafter: Tighter Regulation and New Ownership Model for Critical National Infrastructure The British taxpayer needs to be in control of Britain’s utilities.

There is much in there that I endorse and little that I would disagree with so I have voted for the local Reform candidate. They may not win in my local constituency or win enough seats to have an impact in Parliament in the coming election but I would like to see Reform continue to develop so as to have a major impact on UK politics. They do have a number of good leaders with sensible views – I include Farage, Tice, Habib, Bull, et al.

In conclusion Reform has a better platform than the other major parties and a more practical one. So I have voted for them.

Reform Party manifesto: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371

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.

A Quick Review of the Main Party Manifestos

It’s not yet time to make a final decision on who I will be voting for in the General Election but most of the party manifestos are now available. So I thought I would do a quick review.

The Conservative Manifesto is here: https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/GE2024/Conservative-Manifesto-GE2024.pdf . At 80 pages long not many people will be reading it. Instead they will rely on sound bites in national media such as television channels and the views of their friends. That’s except those who always vote the same way as they have done historically.

The big problem with the Conservative Manifesto is that it makes promises to fix a lot of things which the Torys have had 14 years to improve but have failed abysmally to do so. Massive levels of immigration have damaged housing provision and the NHS is a shambles despite more expenditure on it. There simply aren’t enough doctors, nurses or beds to cope with a growing and more elderly population. There is no revolution in the management of the NHS which is what is really required.

Even when they mention a positive policy of “Backing drivers” they have their facts wrong. They say “While 20mph zones can help improve road safety in residential areas or outside schools, misuse undermines public trust and risks congestion and pollution”. There is no evidence they improve road safety, but there is certainly a lot of misuse of such schemes. The Tories fail to make a clear commitment on how they would stop local councils from abusing such schemes as LTNs with the object of tax raising.

There are some good policies in there, such as “introducing a legal cap on migration to guarantee that numbers will fall every year….”, but it is very unclear how they would make that stick. Likewise they say they “would end frivolous challenges that frustrate infrastructure delivery by amending the law so judicial reviews that don’t have merit do not waste court time”. Easier said than done and who is to say which have merit and which do not? Lawyers would be good at arguing on that.

There are many good things in the Tory manifesto but do we trust them to deliver? I don’t on their past track record and Rishi Sunak is more of a “consensus” politician than a forceful leader who can push through tough policies and get them implemented. In reality the Civil Service seems to be out of control and not implementing Government decisions.

The Reform Party has now become a serious challenger based on the latest YouGov opinion poll which puts them ahead of the Conservatives. You can see some of their manifesto commitments here: https://www.reformparty.uk/policies although it is apparently still a work in progress.

The key issues they identify in the NHS are: Record waiting list crisis; Staffing crisis; Ambulance and A&E crisis; Excess deaths crisis no one wants to talk about; Amongst the Worst outcomes in the developed world. Among their solutions are: NHS acquire extra operational and appointment capacity from not-for-profit providers and the private sector; tax relief on all independent healthcare and insurance – if you can pay more, let’s encourage you to do so. I would support those proposals to ease pressure on the NHS – faster better care for all they claim.

They provide some useful data on doctors, nurses and NHS beds to support their arguments and clearly want to scrap Net Zero commitments without spelling it out. In total the declared policies to cover defence, transport and many other areas are not there yet. Will we see them before the election or will Reform simply expect us to vote for change while avoiding the Labour Party and others?

The Labour Party Manifesto is here: https://labour.org.uk/change/ . They make lots of good suggestions about how they would improve the NHS without necessarily taking into account the practicalities of doing so – such as funding and staffing needs.

They say “Britain needs a new approach: mission-driven government”. Sounds good but what does it mean in practical terms?

They argue that “The National Health Service needs to move to a Neighbourhood Health Service, with more care delivered in local communities to spot problems earlier. To achieve this, we must over time shift resources to primary care and community services”. But big specialist hospitals are known to provide better services and kill fewer people. Diluting the specialist expertise will not help. This is a populist policy similar to having more neighbourhood police on the streets which is also in their manifesto, without much consideration of the practicalities and effectiveness of a new structure.

But the Labour Party certainly seem to have given more thought to what is in their manifesto so the document is more polished than the ones mentioned above.

As the policies of the major parties are so ill-defined it really comes down to who you will trust to do the right thing when they are in power!

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.

Parliamentary Petitions Lost

I have received the following email from Parliament:

You recently signed the petitions:

Give Government powers to veto or amend local road traffic schemes eg. ULEZ/LTNs

Review the brightness of car headlights for safety

Ban local authorities imposing 20mph speed limits on major roads

Raise Motorway Speed Limits to 100mph and Dual Carriageways to 80mph

Because of the General Election, the closing date for the petitions you signed has changed. All petitions now have to close at 00:01am on 30 May. This is because Parliament will be dissolved, which means all parliamentary business – including petitions – must stop. This means the petitions site will be closed and people will not be able to start or sign petitions.

We’re sorry we weren’t able to give you more notice that this would happen.

The petitions will be available for people to read on the site even though it will be closed for signatures. These petitions won’t be reopened after the election.

The Government can’t respond to petitions during the election period. This means if any of the petitions has over 10,000 signatures, they can’t receive a response from the current Government after 29 May. After the election, the new Government will have to decide whether to respond to petitions from before the election.

The current Petitions Committee, the group of MPs who decide whether petitions are debated, won’t exist after 30 May. This means that if any of the petitions has over 100,000 signatures, they can’t be scheduled for debate during this Parliament. After the election, a new Petitions Committee will be responsible for deciding which petitions are debated.

The petitions site will reopen when a new Petitions Committee is appointed, but at the moment we don’t know exactly when.

______________________

It is surely most disappointing if these petitions are to be completely lost.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London