[email protected] wrote:
> So Ladyman, the Government's Transport Minister, thinks that a lower
> level of drink while driving is not necessarily likely to lead to more
> safety on the roads. He does, however, think that insisting that
> bikes have a bell *is*.
> Who voted for this cretin?
> What can be done to get him to start taking his daily cleverness pill
> again?
Comment
The ageing boy racer should restore credibility
by issuing tough road death reduction targets
Ladyman to duck
road safety issues
to please car lobby
by Ben Webster
Why did Tony Blair appoint an ageing boy racer as Road Safety Minister?
With annual road deaths hovering stubbornly between 3,200 and 3,600 for
the past decade, surely it was inappropriate to select a man with a
passion for sports cars and super bikes capable of 160mph.
Perhaps the Prime Minister did not realise that Stephen Ladyman had
been
caught speeding not once, or even twice, but three times. According to
Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales, "anyone who gets
caught speeding three times is a dangerous criminal".
Blair could not have remained in ignorance for long because one of
Ladyman's first acts as minister was to book an appointment on Top
Gear,
where he boasted to Jeremy Clarkson about having been one flash away
from an automatic six-month driving ban.
He also attacked cameras at the bottom of hills as "sneaky" and
unashamedly admitted he had a GPS camera detector in his car. The only
reason for having a detector is to be able to break the speed limit
with
impunity.
Of course, Ladyman was obliged, after zooming round Clarkson's test
track, to spend a couple of minutes on the sofa defending the
Government's speed camera policy. But behind the scenes he was
planning
changes which would warm the coils of every petrolhead's heart.
After blocking the installation of any new cameras for nine months,
Ladyman announced sweeping reforms to the funding system for camera
partnerships.
This was a stroke of political genius. By abolishing hypothecation of
camera fines and giving local authorities an overall road safety
budget,
he simultaneously quashed the idea that cameras were revenue raising
devices and dumped responsibility for speed enforcement policy on
police
and local councillors.
While publicly adhering to the line that cameras saved lives, Ladyman
left partnerships facing an uncertain future. He might argue that the
public is clamouring for the partnerships to be reined in, but that
would indicate he is spending too much time with the likes of Clarkson.
The camera debate is dominated by a vociferous minority of drivers who
believe they, not the government, should be allowed to determine what
is
a safe speed. Most people, even most drivers, are strongly in favour of
cameras and want more of them. Even the AA, in a recent survey, found
69% support for cameras.
While working hard to keep his four-wheeled friends happy, Ladyman has
also found time to promote the interests of fellow born-again bikers.
He
wants to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes, where they will intimidate
cyclists and skittle pedestrians trying to cross through lines of
queuing traffic.
By allowing motorcyclists to dodge queues, Ladyman will encourage more
people to buy motorbikes and send road deaths in the wrong direction.
There are already too many 50-something men coping with their mid-life
crisis by inexpertly riding superbikes at weekends.
Per mile travelled, a motorcyclist is 40 times more likely to be killed
than a car passenger. Even cycling is three times safer than riding a
motorbike.
Ladyman, 54, has an opportunity this month to redeem himself by
supporting European plans to harmonise drink drive laws and introduce
speed limiters on cars. But the omens are not good. The DfT has already
intervened to delete references to these measures in a statement due to
be agreed by EU transport ministers in Brussels.
Ladyman could also restore credibility in the Government's road
safety
policy by issuing tough new casualty reduction targets. The existing
2010 ones are only likely to be achieved because the DfT chose the soft
option of reducing deaths and serious injuries rather than just deaths.
There is wiggle room in the definition of serious injury but you cannot
argue with a death.
Is there any good reason why a greater risk of death should be
tolerated
on roads than on railways? If both had the same death rate, fewer than
1000 people would be killed on roads each year.
Ben Webster is Transport Correspondent of The Times