Nuxx:230e8cf7-fbf4-499f-bfe9-e102182019e7@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <230e8cf7-fbf4-499f-bfe9-e102182019e7@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Campaign for "Better" Transport: A Bogus Charity Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 87 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.193.13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1249847710 17916 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2009 19:55:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.193.13; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5788 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:723694

Swampy in a suit?

Anti roads protestors are nothing new. From the anarchistic campaigners of the early 70=92s to Twyford Down and Newbury in the 90=92s, eco warriors have climbed trees and lived in tunnels in an attempt to stop road building. The latest generation have adopted a corporate image, are media savvy and now thanks to an anti car Government, are funded by the tax payer.

One such group is the Campaign for Better Transport (CfBT). Formally known as Transport 2000. The CfBT employs 14 full time staff and, according to the fake charities website (http://fakecharities.org/ pages/posts/campaign-for-better-transport-charitable-trust28.php), in 2007/8 received =A3417,210 in public funds. A daily Telegraph expos=E9 also revealed that a further fifth of their income comes from train and bus companies. If Swampy had managed to stay down his Newbury bypass protest hole for just 12 months longer he could probably have got public funding too!

We live in a democracy and as such the CfBT have every right to campaign for whatever cause they like [although they and their ilk, e.g. URC regulars, don't seem to think the same about the opponents] but should they receive public funding to do so? Is it right that the Government funds one side of the debate with almost half a million pounds of public money while effectively ignoring the other side?

The CfBT justify the public investment (and questionable charitable status) by producing and disseminating =91research=92. One such piece of research assesses the effects of the Newbury bypass =96 the very road that anti roads campaigners fought so hard to stop. Over a decade on from the dismantling of the protest camps the CfBT conclude that the bypass is a failure because;

=93The bypass =91unlocked=92 the A34, attracting people from across the South of England. Traffic on the bypass was almost 50% higher than predicted.=94

Research such as this is then used as evidence to promote the view that all road building is damaging and counterproductive.

The CfBT assessment of the Newbury bypass is a masterful example of anti road spin. A report produced in 2004 by West Berkshire Council, Highways Agency, Friends of the Earth, and the DfT found that morning peak hour traffic on surrounding roads to be an average 25% lower. In effect the new bypass had done its job and has taken traffic from smaller less suitable roads nearby. Better transport links also makes the Newbury area more attractive to businesses, creating new jobs and boosting the local economy. (Presumably what the CfBT disapprovingly term as =91unlocking the A34=92).

Perhaps most perversely of all, CfBT Director Stephen Joseph is a member of the motorist=92s forum. This Government funded committee;

=93=85=85seeks to improve understanding between the Government and motoring interests and car users. It ensures that motoring interests and car users' views are reflected fully in the development of both Government and local authority policies affecting motorists=94

Not content with funding anti car/anti road groups like the CfBT, the government then appoints the CfBT to =91represent=92 the voice of the driver to the Government. This is an unacceptable situation that cannot be allowed to continue and underlines just how determinedly anti car our Government has become.

Surely if the CfBT are to qualify for public subsidy they should in some way reflect public opinion. Yet, despite a clear rejection of road tolls in Manchester=92s referendum and our 1.8m petition against Road pricing, the CfBT are in favour of Road tolls and work place parking levy. They also advocate increasing fuel duty, lower speed limits including default 20mph urban limits, more speed cameras [Car- haters supporting speed cameras as a means of pissing off motorists? Did someone say "Spindrift"?] and an end to all road building.

Nobody is advocating building roads without proper consideration and every attempt must be made to minimise any adverse effects. However, opposing all new road building as a matter of principle is neither balanced nor reasonable.

The Campaign for Better Transport leads people to believe it is an independent organisation but as long as they =91stay on message=92, lavish Government funding ensures that they never have to worry about public opinion.

To find out more, the Taxpayers Alliance has just released a report on taxpayer funded lobby groups and highlighted the CfBT on page 33. Download the full report from the Taxpayers' Alliance website (http:// www.taxpayersalliance.com/tflpc.pdf).