>Arguments ramble on, as ever, about who is to blame for gridlock and chaos on Britain's roads.
>Essentially the problem is that people want to drive cars. Claims that people would use public
>transport if it were better / cheaper / more reliable usually boil down to a belief that /other/
>people would then use it, freeing the roads for those who are obviously far too important to share
>space with someone who might, after all, be smelly.
I just hope I never have to share any form of transport with Clarkson!
>
>In the mean time there is an ever widening gulf between the promise and the reality of car travel.
>Adverts tell us that if we buy the Satsuma MX-7 Turbo we'll spend our lives tooling round mountain
>passes in perpetual sunshine with Kim Basinger at our side. Small wonder that when we buy the car
>and discover that we are still locked in the same traffic jam on our own in the pouring rain, only
>now losing money even faster due to depreciation, tempers fray.
>
Personally I want to share a car with Hugh Jackman at my side. Paul Gross would
do. Orlando Bloom in his sexy elf outfit would do too. I am most miffed that none of the adverts
show me doing that. Does this mean adverts *lie*?? I am distraught.
>
>Traffic Tantrums
>================
>I say small wonder, but actually there is a conundrum here. The British are, for the most part,
>a supine race: if someone pushes into the supermarket queue in front of us we are more likely to
>write a letter to the paper demanding that the Government do something about the queue-jumping
>menace than we are to actually confront the offender. This reserve seems to vanish as soon as we
>sit in our cars. Traffic tantrums ("road rage" sounds far more mature; tantrums is what they
>are) are becoming more common - we are prepared to fight, occasionally to the death, for a few
>feet of road.
>
>Cyclists, of course, have largely opted out of this madness. The common perception of cyclists as
>"Lycra louts" is almost entirely an invention of the newspapers, based on journalists' experience
>of a small part of central London where bike couriers work. These couriers used to use motorcycles
>(and were almost uninsurable as a result of the incredible accident rate). Now even motorbikes
>can't move in the gridlock and they've started using bikes, using carriageway and pavement
>interchangeably. They are no more representative of cyclists in general than minicab drivers are
>representative of motorists.
>
The term "Lycra louts" is misleading. The "Lycra louts" I see are never actually wearing Lycra. They
are almost always "yoof" on bikes too small for them, where they haven't a clue about what gear to
use, wear dark clothing and don't believe in using lights, stopping at junctions, red lights etc.,
etc... Then there's the odd granny or grandad that pootle along in the gutter and don't think they
have to stop at junctions or obey traffic lights... Don't get me started! Sadly bthey do exist
outside of London
>But the constant air of barely suppressed anger on the roads is taking its toll on cyclists. There
>is a steady stream of reported cases where drivers have placed their own momentary personal
>convenience over the safety of other road users with fatal or near-fatal results. The problem, of
>course, is that most drivers have the vote and most voters drive, so Governments are unlikely to do
>anything to restrict the actions of motorists. There is no doubt that if the car were not useful it
>would not be tolerated. Road accidents are the leading cause of death in the under-16s in the UK
>today - and when we say "accidents" we mean incidents usually caused by negligence on one side or
>the other. Pedestrians are responsible for their own downfall in a relatively large proportion of
>cases - but this doesn't tell the whole story. Surely if you are driving past a school you should
>be prepared for children running out - they are children, after all, with an incompletely developed
>sense of danger and probably no road sense (less than 2% of children now cycle to school - where
>are the other 98% going to learn road sense?)
>
Quite - I know of parents who won't let their 15 & 16 year olds cycle on roads ... it's too
dangerous you know. Theya re taken everywhere by parental taxi. Where are these "kids" going to
learn road sense? Can you imagine what they are going to be like when they get behind the wheel of a
car are let loose after their life time of being taxied about and playing computer games where you
kill someone but that person is alive again after a re-boot??
>
>Don't Mention Europe
>====================
>In some European countries there is a presumption of fault against the driver of any car involved
>in a fatal or injury accident with a vulnerable road user. The driver has to prove that the other
>party was at fault (this applies, of course, only to civil cases, where the balance of
>probabilities is the test). The result is that they commonly have lower rates of cyclist and
>pedestrian fatalities than we do, despite (indeed partly because of) much higher levels of cycling
>an walking. Their highway regulations essentially tell drivers to expect pedestrians and cyclists
>to exhibit poor skills and anticipate this (as does our Highway Code, but it also tells drivers not
>to speed or park on yellow lines, and that can't be right, can it?). The premise on which this
>apparent anomaly is based is that the car is bringing virtually all the danger to the situation.
>Bikes and pedestrians can injure or kill each other in collisions, but it is vanishingly rare.
>
>Obviously any attempt to introduce this kind of system in the UK would be howled down by the Daily
>Mail and the Association of British Drivers, champions of safe driving and defenders of our right
>to break highway law without fear of prosecution (they see no conflict between these aims). A
>different approach is therefore required, one which includes both carrot and stick. Anything from
>Europe is necessarily intolerable (unless it's cheap booze - tax harmonisation is fine as long as
>we take the lowest rate for each particular tax), and anything which fails to recognise the
>absolute supremacy of the car is undermining the economy. Strangely the people who shout loudest
>about loss of British jobs when some measure of control over driving is suggested all tend to have
>their penis extensions built in Germany, which appears on first inspection to be in Europe and
>therefore the spawn of Satan, but apparently different rules apply in this case.
>
>So here is my manifesto, to be put in place as soon as I'm elected President of the Republic of
>Great Britain (sorry Ma'am).
>
> For Motorists
>
>Encouragement to reduce driving
>
>Cars are the problem. It's no use denying it: take all the buses, bikes, motorbikes and lorries off
>the streets of London and they would still be clogged. What's the difference between rush hour and
>off-peak? The number of cars. Not rocket science. So I propose a system of encouragements to switch
>modes and reduce driving mileage. This would begin with vehicle excise duty (VED) rebates for
>driving less than 5,000 miles per year, on the evidence of two consecutive MoT certificates (a
>special form indicating only mileage would be available for cars under 3 years old). There would
>be, of course, a penalty for fraudulent declarations, and a criminal offence of tampering with the
>odometer on a vehicle - which should also deter clocking. Mileage would be recorded on each VED
>application, so clocking would become immediately apparent. A declaration would be available for
>cases where the odometer is replaced, but this is of course rare.
>
In many places is there a difference between rush-hour and off-peak any more?
It's h*ll using motorised transport at any time of day in some cities/towns.
>Encouragement to increase skills
>
>Those who do drive often drive poorly. I would make receipted costs of accredited advanced driver
>training courses (including goods vehicle courses) allowable against tax for all drivers. I would
>also allow traffic police to award certificates redeemable as a discount off VED where they see
>instances of exemplary driving, particularly where a driver's skill or forethought has avoided a
>crash. I would also restore free eye tests on the NHS. As a matter of urgency I would commission
>the development of a new two-stage driving test.
>
Hasn't the "you are a good driver" certificate already been tried in the south-west a few years ago?
What happened to that scheme? Was it any good or just PR?
>Antisocial Behaviour
>
>There is a certain class of car driver who appears to assume that parking restrictions exist to
>ensure there is somewhere for them to park. This is unacceptable. Illegal parking would be subject
>to one penalty point per offence.
>
>The stick......
>
>Automatic short bans for causing death or injury due to negligence, which can at the discretion of
>the court be "traded" for attendance on a driver training course and /or passing an extended
>retest. Bad drivers will either be taken off the road for a while or trained to be better drivers.
>And compulsory retests every ten years, plus evidence of a sight test not more than two years old
>to be submitted with insurance applications.
>
Make sure they get taken to a morgue and are shown the reality of what they do. Close up.
>And the Carrot......
>
>Drivers' organisations will undoubtedly bleat about any increase in penalties for carelessness. How
>dare we infringe their right to drive their cars carelessly? Surely they can hardly be held to
>account for accidents, even if they are negligent. It's an accident. Not very convincing, but you
>should see the claptrap they keep coming up with to justify protesting against speed cameras. So a
>quid pro quo: 80mph limits on motorways, more variable limits around towns (20 limits only when
>lights flashing or whatever) and a study to see if some lengths of motorway are suitable for
>complete derestriction of speed. A key criterion would be the existence of a parallel route of good
>quality for those drivers who don't want to join a racetrack.
>
Somehow... we've got to get away from the idea that the maximum speed limit isn't a speed that
should be driven at all of the time. People need to understand it's a maximum, not a requirement.
Things like road conditions *need* to be taken into account. A road may have a 60mph max limit on
it, but if it's little over single track width, full of bends, high sided so you have little
visibility in front - 60mph may be the max limit, but sure as h*ll isn't safe to be driving along it
at that speed.
Also need to convince plod that just because an "accident" occurred where the vehicle was being
driven at less than the max speed limit, this still may well have been dangerous driving due to road
conditions at the time. There are cases locally where plod has said "Can't do anything, he was under
the speed limit" when serious "accidents" have occurred.
>For Motorcyclists
>
>Encouragement to ride motorcycles
>
>Motorbikes are environmentally desirable (compared to cars) and require less road space. Standards
>of riding are not always good, but this does tend to end in the death of the rider rather than some
>innocent bystander - nonetheless, the same tax allowance will be offered for any accredited
>motorcycle training. To encourage people to use motorcycles round town instead of cars I would
>introduce the following policies:
>
> - Removal of VAT on motorcycle clothing and helmets
> - Repeal of the helmet law (which has not reduced fatalities by any measurable degree)
> - Reduced VED bands for 4-stroke motorcycles with modest engines (defined by bhp)
>
>Motorcyclists do suffer a disproportionate casualty rate, and a disproportionately high rate of
>single-vehicle accidents. Additional tests may well be appropriate for those riding high power
>motorcycles. The periodic retest requirement will extend to motorcyclists, so that "born again
>bikers" will be required to demonstrate competence before being allowed to ride after a period off
>the bike.
>
>For Cyclists
>
>The bicycle is the most efficient vehicle on the planet, and offers unparalleled advantages for
>local urban transport. It has health benefits as well as environmental ones, so encouraging
>cycling is a double win. Levels of cycling are at a historic low in the UK at present, so much
>work is needed.
Agree with that.
>
>Encouragement to cycle
>
>Many people have bikes, many others don't. Those who do have bikes often fail to maintain them or
>(to pick one common complaint) to fit lights. In order to encourage people to buy bikes, and having
>bought them, to equip them properly, I would remove VAT on all pedal cycles (not including electric
>assist or petrol assist cycles) and accessories. There is no appreciable UK-based component
>manufacturing industry, so low or zero rates of import duty would be applied to bicycles and
>bicycle components.
>
>Cycle Facilities
>
>Overall the safest place to ride is on the road, but some people are unhappy with riding amongst
>traffic. On the other hand, bikes and pedestrians mix poorly. Multi-use paths encourage pavement
>cycling and increase danger for both cyclists and pedestrians - they should be removed as soon as
>practicable unless the councils can make a compelling case for retention of any path. "Green
>Kleptonite" strips will be subject to a minimum width, and where they are used it will not be
>permitted for them to end within 20m of a junction.
>
True about cycle paths.
>Bad Habits
>
>Among the bad habits which give cyclists a poor image are: riding without lights, riding on the
>pavement and jumping red lights. All are much less serious and with much lower injury rates than
>the common motoring offences, but should be addressed. Spot fines of, say £25 for no lights would
>be a useful deterrent. This is less than the cost of a set of basic lights. Ensuring that the fine
>remains higher than the cost of compliance is important in this case. Pavement cycling should be
>the subject of an education campaign - after all, shared use paths have been sending mixed
>messages. After a period for the message to sink in, pavement cycling by adults would carry the
>same penalty as no lights. And if the cycle is also found to be unroadworthy for other reasons,
>higher penalties, including seizure of the bike.
>
True. Can we have this about motorised transport too - where it *happens*???
>Guy
You forgot about cutting off the goolies. Very amiss.
Cheers, helen s
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
>dynamic DNS permitting)
>NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!
Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~
