Here’s a Parliamentary Petition worth signing: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652269
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.
| These words were recently received: How to abolish the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, and Transport for London? During the mid-1980s, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took the control of London Transport away from the Greater London Council and then abolished the Greater London Council by simply changing legislation in parliament. Then in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour was elected into government, he held a referendum on establishing the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, which led to the Congestion Charge in 2003. The referendum held in 1998 had a yes vote of 72.01%, but the voter turnout was low, just at 34.1%, and they still went ahead despite no voter threshold! There’s no law requiring a referendum to abolish the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. Here are the instructions: 1. Lobby your Member of Parliament and the members of the Lords to submit a bill in Parliament to repeal the ‘Greater London Authority Act 1999’ and the relevant legislation to immediately abolish the Greater London Authority. This includes contacting the local political party groups where they have their MPs elected. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/ https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/get-in-touch-with-members/ 2. Mention to your MP and the Lord why it is important for them to change the law by abolishing the Mayor of London, the GLA, and transferring the control of London’s transport back to government control. Specifically mention how abolishing the Mayor of London will help reduce council tax for residents in London, services will be improved under government control (such as London Transport), corruption and embezzlement will be reduced, and road users will not face any charges (Congestion Charge, ULEZ etc.) when they drive into London once the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is repealed. 3. Contact your local councillors to support the bill by passing a motion in their local council; this includes the benefits of abolishing the Greater London Authority. 4. Share this message with various groups, including anti-ULEZ and road user groups, for further support. 5. Keep pressuring the MPs and Lords to get the law repealed. The Conservative government still has the majority in the House of Commons to stop the ULEZ by simply changing the law, but they refuse to do so! These instructions are really simple; the cause of the problem is the lawmakers, as they have the power to improve our lives by changing the law! If they refuse to abide by these instructions or to support the abolition of the GLA, They are implicit; this includes the trade unions that are backing the Labour Party, as they are scabs and traitors to the working class with their incompetence. |
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
On the 2nd of May we have the elections in London for the Mayor and London Assembly members. Elections will also take place for councils and mayors in England and police and crime commissioners in England and Wales.
In London if you wish to have a postal vote rather than vote in person you need to apply as soon as possible and don’t forget that you will need a photo-id for the first time if you are voting in person.
A poll of 1,019 Londoners by Survation revealed the incumbent Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan may get 44% of the vote, with his Conservative rival, Susan Hall, on 26% – eighteen points behind. The Liberal Democrats’ Rob Blackie, and Zoe Garbett, the Green Party candidate, are level on 7%, with Reform UK’s Howard Cox on 5%. A Savanta poll for the Centre for London put the Labour mayor on 51 per cent and the Tory contender 27 per cent.
It appears that Sadiq Khan is very likely to get re-elected although with almost a month to go to polling day the situation could change. Why is Sadiq Khan doing so well when crime in London has got much worse and his claims on house building are a gross distortion of the truth? Council taxes have also risen because of the Mayor’s precept and the ULEZ scheme has added to motoring costs very substantially. Perhaps because he has promised to cap public transport fare rises and offered free meals to primary school children. His claims that the ULEZ scheme has reduced air pollution in London are false but the public has not seen through his lies.
The May London election for Mayor will be held using the first-past-the-post system for the first time, meaning voters will no longer be able to vote for a second preference candidate. That is most unfortunate. So if you hate Sadiq Khan as I do then the only alternative is some tactical voting – in essence to choose the candidate with reasonable policies and most likely to win.
I have supported both the Conservative and Reform Parties in the past but there seems little chance that Howard Cox of Reform will get enough votes this year. It takes time to build a new party machine in a new region and London is a particularly difficult territory due to the tendency for voters to vote on traditional national party lines or on ethnic prejudices compounded by the fraudulent use of postal votes.
I will therefore likely be voting for Susan Hall unless the picture changes between now and polling day. But I will be voting for Reform candidates in the Assembly Member elections.
You can see the full list of candidates for Mayor here: https://www.londonelects.org.uk/media-centre/london-mayoral-candidates-announced
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.
Many local councils are generating millions of pounds in fines from LTNs and moving traffic offences. They use this as a source of income due to the financial pressures they are under.
A good example is Hammersmith & Fulham in London who are getting £1 million a month from a single Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. This is from camera enforced PCNs which numbered 341,000 in 11 months. Local M.P. Greg Hands launched a petition against the scheme which got over 5,000 signatures and there is widespread local opposition.
The scheme creates enormous difficulties for local residents and businesses as delivery vehicles will often get fined. There are some exceptions for local residents and taxis but the number of fines issued tells you that the council has a very strong financial incentive to promote this scheme regardless – see https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood-project
Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/30/hammersmith-fulham-council-ltn-pcn-fines-one-million-month/
Comment: this way of raising money using the excuse of the need to reduce air pollution is unprincipled and immoral. Sadiq Khan has been doing this with the ULEZ scheme and local councils should not be using camera enforced schemes to generate income. There is little evidence of environmental benefit and most of the people fined are visitors who get caught through ignorance of the scheme, or get routed through it by satnav systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.