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 TantrumsI 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 EuropeIn 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. |
| I would also reintroduce objective guidelines for speed limits. The setting of arbitrary speed limits by councils is a menace and should be stopped. Clearly the old policy which prevented a 30mph limit on a narrow village street unless it had street lighting was a nonsense, but so is a 30mph limit on an A road with not a house in sight. |
| 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 more than the cost of a set of basic lights and 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. The same would apply for jumping red lights - sometimes you just have to save people from themselves. |
Please feel free to comment using the feedback link below.
|