Cars Lasting Longer and 40 Limit on A20

A couple of interesting news items worth covering:

Cars are aging.

Cars are lasting longer according to an article published by the Brown Car Guy (a.k.a. Shahzad Sheikh). Apparently the age of the UK car fleet is rising. The average age of cars on UK roads is now nearly 10 years which the writer concludes is a good thing. See https://browncarguy.com/2025/08/06/uk-drivers-are-keeping-their-cars-for-10-years-and-thats-a-good-thing/ . It’s an article worth reading.

I think I agree particularly as new electric vehicles cost so much. Even petrol/diesel cars last longer – I typically used to keep vehicles for 5 years but now more like 8 and with the limited mileage I do now and current health problems my current vehicle may be the last one I ever purchase.

Keeping a vehicle for 8 years, whether purchased new of second-hand, minimises the immediate loss from depreciation in the first year or two. So financially it makes sense and is better for the environment.

Legal Challenge to A20 Speeding Fines.

There have been a lot of complaints, and media coverage, about the abrupt change from a 70mph speed limit to 40mph on the A20 near Swanley. Thousands of people have been issued with fines as a result.

The limit was changed because of flooding on the A20 and was probably justified as a road safety measure following some serious accidents but the new limit was put in place without notice and poorly signed. However Chislehurst resident John Dunlop is challenging his prosecution and has defended it in Bromley Magistrates Court – a further hearing will take place in Novermber.

Comment: This was certainly an unjust prosecution that impacted many people. I advise anyone caught by this scam to persist with defending against it.

See Telegraph article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/08/tfl-speeding-driver-fights-court-case-lbc-host-iain-dale/

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

10 Mph Speed Limits and Lack of Motorway Construction

If you thought blanket 20 mph speed limits (now prevalent in Wales and London) were silly then you’ll be astonished to hear that the charity Road Safety Foundation are calling for 10 mph speed limits in urban areas where pedestrians and cyclists are commonly seen. This is part of their Vision Zero policy to cut road deaths to zero.

Vision Zero was adopted as a policy in London in 2018 but has been an abysmal failure in reducing road casualties – see this previous blog post for an analysis: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/

Ten mph is surely even dafter and impossible to comply with – just try driving at 10 mph and wait for the reaction from drivers behind you!

The Spectator have published a good article on this subject which you can read here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-blanket-city-10mph-speed-limit-is-preposterous/ . They rightly call it preposterous. Such a policy is only being pushed by those cyclists and pedestrians who would like to get rid of all cars and vans from our streets which would cause major problems for the elderly and disabled who rely on them. It would also slow down our roads to walking pace. Car users need to fight such policies whenever and wherever they are proposed.

No Motorway Building

The FT have published an article that shows how pathetic the UK has been in building more road capacity, particularly motorways in the last few years. This is some of what they said:

Britain has added just 65 miles of new motorway in the past decade, with a large proportion of this figure the result of a statistical quirk rather than actual construction, according to data from the Department for Transport. Some other European countries have built thousands of miles of new highways during the same period. Only three new stretches of motorway were opened in that period, on the A1(M) to Newcastle, the M8 near Glasgow and the M90/Queensferry Crossing”.

Why is the UK so bad at building new roads? Because of lack of forward planning, national government policies that inhibit spending money on roads while railways get largesse that cannot be justified on any rational cost/benefit analysis, and because of opposition from nimbys. Lack of sound political leadership is the essence of the problem.

But the UK has suffered from the same leadership failure over excessive immigration. Labour, Conservative and LibDems have been the problem in failing to act wisely and decisively. Let us hope the Reform Party will get a chance to do things differently.

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.

Banned Drivers Rise and Traffic Volumes  

Banning drivers is not working

According to a report by Shahzad Sheikh 140,000 drivers lost their licenses last year. This is a 15% increase. Why are the numbers rising? It’s from lowered speed limits, more speed cameras and more enforcement mainly although using a hand-held phone is also a problem.

Have these tougher measures actually improved road safety and reduced the number of casualties? In essence no.

In 2023 there were 29,643 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, little change compared to 2022 according to the latest DfT report based on police STATS19 reports.

Clearly the policies adopted on improving road safety are not working even ignoring the fact that these figures need adjusting for changes in the number of vehicles on the road and traffic volumes.

Congestion Getting Worse

TomTom, the provider of SatNav systems, has recently reported on traffic volumes and congestion. London as usual comes out badly and is getting worse. Average time to travel 10 km in London is now over 33 minutes. That makes it by far the worse of major cities in Europe. See https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/ranking/ for more details.

The London Mayor’s Transport Strategy to reduce congestion and improve road safety is not working as could be expected. When dogma takes priority over rational analysis and sensible policies there is no improvement.

New York recently introduced a Congestion Charge for the Manhattan area to cut traffic congestion and improve funding for public transport. Is it working? That’s debatable and surrounding areas like New Jersey are complaining. Donald Trump is trying to overturn the change.

I suggest that any improvement will be temporary as traffic will soon adjust to fill up the new road space. You cannot price people off the roads as there is too much unsatisfied demand, as has been demonstrated in London where the data has been ignored.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.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

New TfL Board Members

Sadiq Khan has appointed several new board members to the Transport for London (TfL) board, which he chairs. These are not the kind of people who are likely to tackle the financial problems of TfL or stop the gesture politics that is so favoured by Khan.

Where are the candidates with experience of running a large transport system? Where are the representatives of those using private cars, or commercial vehicles on business, or even bus users? But of course we do have a representative of the TUC to support the workers.

These are just likely to be a bunch of people who will approve the financial recklessness embodied in the Mayor’s Transport Policy and which has not improved road safety because misguided policies such as 20 mph speed limits are promoted.  

Roger Lawson

TfL Press Release: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-appoints-new-members-refreshed-tfl-board

 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.

New Transport Secretary Has Delusions

The new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, has said the Labour Government will invest “unprecedented levels of funding” in cycling and walking as a way to improve health and inequality. She apparently thinks this could cut GP appointments “by hundreds of thousands, if not millions a year”. This is delusional.

The general population is fitter than it has been for a long time with increases in cycling and other forms of exercise. But the number of GP appointments and demand for medical services is rising. Why? Because the population is ageing, a minority of people are too fat because of addiction to junk food and people also have higher expectations of the NHS.

She also said: ““We’re in a climate crisis. We’re in a public health crisis; getting people walking and cycling and moving more are essential to solving both of those in the immediate term and in the long term”.

She is also quoted in the Independent as saying “Ms Haigh dubbed the last government’s approach to 20mph speed limits, cycle lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods “ridiculous” after it launched criticism of so-called “anti-motorist” policies. She apparently does not want central Government interfering in what should be local decisions. But we’ll surely end up with lunatic schemes as we have seen in Wales, in several London boroughs and in the policies of TfL and Sadiq Khan. For example, this comes despite a recent YouGov survey indicating that 70 per cent of people in Wales – which last year imposed a 20mph speed limit in built up areas – opposed the policy. Meanwhile, 40 per cent admitted to regularly breaking it.

I suggest Ms Haigh needs to reconsider but this is the kind of dogma we see from socialist politicians who think they know better than the public and like to impose their views on others. Labour is rapidly losing popularity since the General Election and this is the kind of reason why. Practical considerations and scientific evidence are ignored – for example 20 mph limits have not improved road safety figures.

Throwing money at new cycle lanes will not solve the underlying health problems of a minority of the population and claims about tackling a “climate crisis” are simply ludicrous. But is seems the war on the motorist is going to be escalated.  

Roger Lawson

Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/20/labour-investment-cycling-walking-unprecedented-louise-haigh

Independent article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/20mph-speed-limits-louise-haigh-b2599608.html

BBC Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v8d4lvjryo

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.

C4 Programme, Automated Vehicles, Seat Belt Use, Classic Cars and Congestion Charge Taxes

There is a TV programme on Channel 4 at 8.00 pm tonight (23/5/2024) entitled “The War on Britain’s Motorists” that should be worth watching. It may cover the poor quality of Britain’s roads and no doubt fixing the potholes will be in every party’s general election manifesto. But will a few more millions of pounds to patch the odd hole really solve the problem? I think not.

Parliament has passed the Automated Vehicles Act which means vehicles with no human driver in charge could be legal by 2026. I am sceptical that this will prove of benefit other than to taxi and minicab services. In London I am not convinced that SatNav systems are good enough to know all the roads well enough to avoid mistakes. We will have to see how this works out.

Shahzad Sheikh has reported that one in four road deaths are caused by drivers or their passengers not wearing seat belts. See  https://browncarguy.com/2024/05/21/1-in-4-road-deaths-due-to-no-seatbelt/ . This is not new news to me as it was reported many years ago in my local borough of Bromley. The message is clear. However good a driver you think you are buckling up can help protect you against other idiots on the roads, or out of control driverless vehicles.

The Government has launched a Public Consultation on the registration of classic or modified vehicles. See https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/registering-historic-classic-rebuilt-vehicles-and-vehicles-converted-to-electric-call-for-evidence . This will be of interest to anyone who runs classic cars or modifies them.

The US Embassy is refusing to pay a claim of £14.6 million in Congestion Charge Fees, and some other embassies are also objecting. They claim it is a tax and hence are exempt. Comment: They are right. “Charges” invented by TfL are indeed taxes and they should not pay as foreign embassies are exempt from state taxes.

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.

Cycling Danger to Pedestrians

female cyclist riding bicycle along mountain road in summer
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

There have been a number of media reports on the problems caused by dangerous cycling. That includes several pedestrians killed in collisions with cyclists who were typically exceeding 20 or 30 mph speed limits. A recent example was the death of Hilda Griffiths after being hit by a cyclist in Regents Park where groups of cyclists race around the outer circle. That has a 20-mph speed limit but speed limits do not apply to cyclists as cycles are not “vehicles”. See this Telegraph article for more examples: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/19/justice-dangerous-cyclists-matt-briggs-legal-amendment/

Some years ago (in 2016) I pointed out the danger of cyclists using the Strava App to monitor their cycling activity. In practice they are using it to compare their pace to others and are effectively racing against the clock over known stretches of road. They wish to record the fastest time. After I wrote an article on the subject I received abuse from cyclists claiming it was untrue and asking me to remove the article. I refused.

Since then the situation has got a lot worse.

The current law does not easily enable the cyclists to be prosecuted. This may change after the passing of an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill last week meaning cyclists who ride dangerously and kill or maim will face tougher new laws and longer prison sentences. However it will be difficult to stop the current criminality of cyclists exceeding reasonable speed limits, riding on pavements and through red lights until they have registration plates.

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.

Dazzled by Headlights?

photography of street during rainy day
Photo by Mike on Pexels.com

If you are dazzled by the headlights of on-coming vehicles you will be interested in a recent Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on this subject. It was commenced in response to a petition on this subject.

As headlights have got more powerful and the population has aged, this is a growing problem. An ageing population means there is more prevalence of people with cataracts which may not be bad enough to prompt them to have a cataract replacement operation but may deter them from driving in the dark.

The Government has commissioned independent research into this issue but the problem seems to quite clear already. See  https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f3f97249-7bc5-424f-8850-a9537296720d?in=11:00:05 to listen to the debate.

Incidentally as someone who had cataract operations some years ago I don’t find car headlights much of a problem, but I do have a problem with the bright, flashing lights now used by cyclists. These I find both distracting and liable to conceal on-coming vehicles. I think they should be made illegal.

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.

Why a Cost/Benefit Analysis Should Always Be Done

If a politician proposes any measure to improve road safety, they should do a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, work out whether the proposal will save more in financial terms than it costs.

The benefit of any road safety scheme can be estimated by looking at the likely reduction in casualties and what they might be worth. For example, the Department for Transport (DfT) publishes estimated costs of accidents – these are £2.2 million for a fatal casualty, £250,000 for a serious injury and £20,000 for a slight injury. One can argue as to whether these are accurate and realistic estimates. Some people argue that they are pessimistic – for example would you pay £20,000 to avoid a minor bruise or cut that did not require hospital treatment? But they do provide a good starting point for any examination of any proposed scheme. The cost of any proposed scheme can usually be estimated fairly closely and it’s not difficult to estimate the likely reduction in casualties from looking at the historic records of police reports on accidents on a stretch of road.

For example, take the wide-area 20 mph limit schemes that are springing up everywhere, particularly in London. From research published by the DfT these are known to have minimal or negligible impact on casualties. But they cost a lot of money to implement – to put up signs, maintain them and the associated road markings, and to enforce them by the police.

In reality spending money on such schemes might be much better spent on other road safety measures – such as education and road engineering to improve accident black spots. Reducing traffic speeds alone costs money in driver and passenger wasted time (bus passengers can be badly affected for example).

A recent article published by the Telegraph (see link below) shows that many London councils do not do any cost/benefit analysis on new schemes. They rely solely on the often mis-informed views of councillors. This irrational behaviour is one reason why London is now the world’s slowest city as reported by satnav company TomTom.

Transport for London (TfL) has spent millions of pounds on it’s Vision Zero plan to cut casualties by reducing speed limits – to no obvious effect (see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/ ).

If people wish to reduce road casualties, they need to do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed scheme, and compare it to the alternatives. All we tend to get at the moment is prejudiced opinions from ill-informed commentators.

Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/12/london-councils-did-not-do-cost-benefit-analysis/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London