Full text of
<http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Safer_Roads_Manifesto>
=====================================================================
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guy
===
** 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.