Eight Hybrid 'Routemaster' buses will be on the streets of London today at a cost of £1.4 million each, compared to £190,000 for an ordinary double-decker bus. Apparently they are twice as fuel efficient as a diesel bus (that must be about 12mpg then).
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/welcome-back--remodelled-routemaster-set-to-hit-the-streets-of-london.html
Monday 27 February 2012
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Greening cools on 80mph, but Eagle sees it as opportunity for more lowered limits
The Telegraph reports that Labour's Transport spokesperson Maria Eagle is ready to support an 80mph speed limit. However, there's a catch or two. 70mph would be cut elsewhere and the 10% plus 2mph guideline for the speeding prosecution threshold would be cut. Thanks, but no thanks Maria! Drivers would be better off if the motorway limit remained at 70mph. The 80mph motorway speed limit proposal is a red-herring - speed limits lowered to unreasonable levels in rural and urban areas is a bigger problem for drivers. The best policy would be that all speed limits on all roads should be based on the '85th percentile.'
Read the Telegraph story 'Labour ready to back 80mph motorway limit' here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9096303/Labour-ready-to-back-80mph-motorway-limit.html
Read the Telegraph story 'Labour ready to back 80mph motorway limit' here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9096303/Labour-ready-to-back-80mph-motorway-limit.html
Tuesday 14 February 2012
New drivers to 'be supervised by an over-25?'
Prime Minister David Cameron is hosting an 'Insurance Summit' at Downing Street today. Aside from discussing how to tackle spurious whiplash injury claims and rising insurance costs, a scheme for new drivers may also be considered whereby a new driver will have to carry an over 25-year old as a passenger for a probationary period.
I don't think that this is a practical idea - are there enough police on the roads to stop and question passengers of new drivers about their age, or to check that new drivers are still on their probationary period despite not dispalying 'P' plates? This would also have the effect of restricting essential car use for new or young drivers - no over 25-year old passenger - no travel! I see a business opportunity here - rent a passenger!
If so many new young drivers aren't fit to drive on the road, then this is a reflection on the current standards of driver training. Surely it would be better to make them drive with 'P' plates until they have successfully completed advanced training, or make them complete advanced training before they are given a full licence?
I don't think that this is a practical idea - are there enough police on the roads to stop and question passengers of new drivers about their age, or to check that new drivers are still on their probationary period despite not dispalying 'P' plates? This would also have the effect of restricting essential car use for new or young drivers - no over 25-year old passenger - no travel! I see a business opportunity here - rent a passenger!
If so many new young drivers aren't fit to drive on the road, then this is a reflection on the current standards of driver training. Surely it would be better to make them drive with 'P' plates until they have successfully completed advanced training, or make them complete advanced training before they are given a full licence?
Chinese Study Compares Petrol, Diesel & Electric Vehicle Emissions
Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies, focusing on dangerous fine particles.
They found that the electricity generated to power electric cars caused more particulate matter pollution than that caused by an equivalent number of petrol driven vehicles.
Particulate matter comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
Professor Cherry said: 'An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles.
'Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to.'
Professor Cherry and his team focused on China because of the popularity of electric vehicles. E-cars and e-bikes in the country now outnumber conventional vehicles two to one.
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used.
In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal.
The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emitted fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, they found, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometre traveled in China than conventional vehicles
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2100936/Could-e-cars-cause-pollution-normal-ones-Study-shows-impact-worse-petrol-powered-vehicles.html#ixzz1mMNuB7QN
They found that the electricity generated to power electric cars caused more particulate matter pollution than that caused by an equivalent number of petrol driven vehicles.
Particulate matter comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
Professor Cherry said: 'An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles.
'Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to.'
Professor Cherry and his team focused on China because of the popularity of electric vehicles. E-cars and e-bikes in the country now outnumber conventional vehicles two to one.
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used.
In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal.
The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emitted fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, they found, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometre traveled in China than conventional vehicles
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2100936/Could-e-cars-cause-pollution-normal-ones-Study-shows-impact-worse-petrol-powered-vehicles.html#ixzz1mMNuB7QN
Saturday 11 February 2012
7% Biodiesel is the limit for Common Rail Engines and DPFs
Those of us who drive modern cars with 'Common Rail' diesel engines (or the VW 'PD' engine) and Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) should be aware that using diesel fuel that contains more than 7% Biodiesel can cause very expensive damage to the engine. (7% Biodiesel is known as BS EN 590).
Having mandated DPFs for Euro V compliant vehicles, EU bureaucrats have also mandated the gradual increase of Biodiesel content over the coming years (Directive 2003/30/EC). B30 (30% Biodiesel) certainly isn't DPF compatible and obviously nor is 100% Biodiesel. Only the Soviet EU could dream up and implement two such incompatible mandates that are likely to cause problems for drivers and their wallets. I hope that the biofuel content of diesel (and petrol) is going to be labelled at the pumps so we know exactly what we are actually putting into our tanks!
See the VW statement on Biodiesel here:
www.volkswagen.co.uk/assets/common/pdf/general/biodiesel.pdf
Having mandated DPFs for Euro V compliant vehicles, EU bureaucrats have also mandated the gradual increase of Biodiesel content over the coming years (Directive 2003/30/EC). B30 (30% Biodiesel) certainly isn't DPF compatible and obviously nor is 100% Biodiesel. Only the Soviet EU could dream up and implement two such incompatible mandates that are likely to cause problems for drivers and their wallets. I hope that the biofuel content of diesel (and petrol) is going to be labelled at the pumps so we know exactly what we are actually putting into our tanks!
See the VW statement on Biodiesel here:
www.volkswagen.co.uk/assets/common/pdf/general/biodiesel.pdf
If biofuels are not the answer, what is?
The Scientific Alliance Newsletter: If biofuels are not the answer, what is?
Going back a few years, biofuels seemed to offer at least a partial solution to the dilemma which policymakers were faced with: having committed themselves to large-scale reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, how could the targets be achieved? The sensible solution seemed to be – and in principle is – to make savings across all sectors of energy generation and use, including transport. Using agricultural crops as raw material therefore had a number of attractions, as long as it did not have too much impact on food security or prices.
Governments – notably the US and EU member states – were so convinced of this that they began to set escalating targets for the use of biofuels. However, what were originally a relatively few voices raised in dissent has more recently become a veritable chorus. Not only have concerns been raised by people who see nothing wrong in using as much oil as can be afforded, but the most hard-hitting attacks are being made by environmentalist groups; the very constituency who might have been expected to approve of fossil fuel replacements.
Most recently, Friends of the Earth Europe (partly funded, we should not forget, by the European Commission using taxpayers’ money) and ActionAid have produced a short media briefing: The bad business of biofuels. And the headline of their press release sums up their message as EU biofuel targets will cost €126billion without reducing emissions. These figures come from two new reports published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the University of Cologne’s FiFo Institute for Public Economics (for the full references click on the link).
Such a report may not be too surprising coming from this source, given the increasing concerns about real rather than notional savings in emissions, and the impact on farming in developing countries. One major problem is that land may be converted (eg from forestry or pasture) for use for biofuel crops and factoring in the additional carbon emissions from this – let alone the impact on biodiversity – makes expansion of the sector difficult to justify (at least according to the current orthodoxy). This is reinforced by the EU’s own (leaked) figures, which assign values to a range of biofuels (see the Euractiv article Biodiesels pollute more than crude oil, leaked data show). This are presumably taken from the much-delayed study on environmental impacts of biofuels initiated by the Commission in 2008.
The comparison is with conventional crude oil, which is taken to emit 87.5g CO2 per megajoule of energy (107g CO2/mj for oil from tar sands). The leaked figures incorporate emissions from so-called Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC). On this basis, biodiesel from palm and soy oils come in at 105 and 103g/mj respectively: a profile very similar to that of tar sands. Corn (maize) from which American bioethanol is produced has a more respectable figure of 43g/mj, while sugar cane, the feedstock in Brazil, is only 32g/mj.
The big problem is that there is a lot of biodiesel produced and used in the EU, much more than bioethanol, and its use is set to increase significantly in coming years, despite the Commission apparently knowing that the purported environmental benefits are non-existent. Nevertheless, in the world of realpolitik, decisions are often not based on rational evidence. European Voice reported last September (Commission to fudge CO2 effects of biofuel) that Connie Hedegaard (climate action commissioner) and Guenther Oettinger (energy commissioner) have agreed to delay proposals on attaching emissions values to specific biofuels until 2014, with no measures coming into force until at least two years later.
Hedegaard is known to be sceptical about the benefits of biofuels, but it seems that this is a victory for style (being seen to be doing something about climate change) over substance (doing something which might some effect). The parallel is with the continued, expensive expansion of wind and solar energy for little real benefit. Once committed to a course of action, politicians and officials hate to admit they are wrong.
So, if biofuels (at least in their current incarnation) are not the answer to the perceived need for environmentally-friendly transport, what is? The ‘hydrogen economy’ is still favoured by some, but it’s really difficult to see why. Electrolysing water and compressing (or liquefying) and storing hydrogen are energy intensive processes which simply produce an alternative energy carrier to the oil-based fuels currently used. The hydrogen can power conventional internal combustion engines or, if they ever become commercially viable, generate electricity in fuel cells.
Ignoring the horrendous practical problems of storage and containment, the only apparent advantage of hydrogen-fuelled cars is that water vapour alone comes out the exhaust pipe: a step forward for air quality in cities, but surely creating its own problems in freezing air. The energy for electrolysis must come from a renewable source – hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, etc – for the hydrogen use to give the targeted emissions savings and to make any sense at all. Indeed, this could be the best use for the inherently intermittent output from wind turbines or solar panels. But the likelihood of hydrogen-powered vehicles on the roads in any numbers during the lifetime of any readers is remote, at best.
Which leaves us, for now at least, with the alternative of electric cars. Hyped as the future of motoring, and enthusiastically promoted by politicians, some people obviously have great faith in them. Not so the public: in the UK for example, despite grants of up to £5,000 to bring the purchase price closer to that of conventional cars, only about a thousand were sold last year. The total of 2,149 now on the road are served by 2,500 special charging points (Electric avenue – the Observer). Despite the launch of models by major manufacturers, they are likely to remain a minority interest until key issues such as cost, range, battery life and rapid battery exchange points are sorted. And, of course, they make no more sense than hydrogen-fuelled cars unless the electricity is from renewable sources.
All this strongly suggests that oil-fuelled conventional cars (and lorries, and planes and ships) will remain the norm for the next few decades. Manufacturers continue to develop and refine engines, and enormous strides have been made in fuel efficiency. Doubtless something better will come along, just as the internal combustion engine replaced the horse, but an undeveloped or unsuitable technology cannot simply be foisted on an unwilling public by eager politicians. They should encourage research and development, but stop supporting biofuels until they make economic and environmental sense.
Going back a few years, biofuels seemed to offer at least a partial solution to the dilemma which policymakers were faced with: having committed themselves to large-scale reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, how could the targets be achieved? The sensible solution seemed to be – and in principle is – to make savings across all sectors of energy generation and use, including transport. Using agricultural crops as raw material therefore had a number of attractions, as long as it did not have too much impact on food security or prices.
Governments – notably the US and EU member states – were so convinced of this that they began to set escalating targets for the use of biofuels. However, what were originally a relatively few voices raised in dissent has more recently become a veritable chorus. Not only have concerns been raised by people who see nothing wrong in using as much oil as can be afforded, but the most hard-hitting attacks are being made by environmentalist groups; the very constituency who might have been expected to approve of fossil fuel replacements.
Most recently, Friends of the Earth Europe (partly funded, we should not forget, by the European Commission using taxpayers’ money) and ActionAid have produced a short media briefing: The bad business of biofuels. And the headline of their press release sums up their message as EU biofuel targets will cost €126billion without reducing emissions. These figures come from two new reports published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the University of Cologne’s FiFo Institute for Public Economics (for the full references click on the link).
Such a report may not be too surprising coming from this source, given the increasing concerns about real rather than notional savings in emissions, and the impact on farming in developing countries. One major problem is that land may be converted (eg from forestry or pasture) for use for biofuel crops and factoring in the additional carbon emissions from this – let alone the impact on biodiversity – makes expansion of the sector difficult to justify (at least according to the current orthodoxy). This is reinforced by the EU’s own (leaked) figures, which assign values to a range of biofuels (see the Euractiv article Biodiesels pollute more than crude oil, leaked data show). This are presumably taken from the much-delayed study on environmental impacts of biofuels initiated by the Commission in 2008.
The comparison is with conventional crude oil, which is taken to emit 87.5g CO2 per megajoule of energy (107g CO2/mj for oil from tar sands). The leaked figures incorporate emissions from so-called Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC). On this basis, biodiesel from palm and soy oils come in at 105 and 103g/mj respectively: a profile very similar to that of tar sands. Corn (maize) from which American bioethanol is produced has a more respectable figure of 43g/mj, while sugar cane, the feedstock in Brazil, is only 32g/mj.
The big problem is that there is a lot of biodiesel produced and used in the EU, much more than bioethanol, and its use is set to increase significantly in coming years, despite the Commission apparently knowing that the purported environmental benefits are non-existent. Nevertheless, in the world of realpolitik, decisions are often not based on rational evidence. European Voice reported last September (Commission to fudge CO2 effects of biofuel) that Connie Hedegaard (climate action commissioner) and Guenther Oettinger (energy commissioner) have agreed to delay proposals on attaching emissions values to specific biofuels until 2014, with no measures coming into force until at least two years later.
Hedegaard is known to be sceptical about the benefits of biofuels, but it seems that this is a victory for style (being seen to be doing something about climate change) over substance (doing something which might some effect). The parallel is with the continued, expensive expansion of wind and solar energy for little real benefit. Once committed to a course of action, politicians and officials hate to admit they are wrong.
So, if biofuels (at least in their current incarnation) are not the answer to the perceived need for environmentally-friendly transport, what is? The ‘hydrogen economy’ is still favoured by some, but it’s really difficult to see why. Electrolysing water and compressing (or liquefying) and storing hydrogen are energy intensive processes which simply produce an alternative energy carrier to the oil-based fuels currently used. The hydrogen can power conventional internal combustion engines or, if they ever become commercially viable, generate electricity in fuel cells.
Ignoring the horrendous practical problems of storage and containment, the only apparent advantage of hydrogen-fuelled cars is that water vapour alone comes out the exhaust pipe: a step forward for air quality in cities, but surely creating its own problems in freezing air. The energy for electrolysis must come from a renewable source – hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, etc – for the hydrogen use to give the targeted emissions savings and to make any sense at all. Indeed, this could be the best use for the inherently intermittent output from wind turbines or solar panels. But the likelihood of hydrogen-powered vehicles on the roads in any numbers during the lifetime of any readers is remote, at best.
Which leaves us, for now at least, with the alternative of electric cars. Hyped as the future of motoring, and enthusiastically promoted by politicians, some people obviously have great faith in them. Not so the public: in the UK for example, despite grants of up to £5,000 to bring the purchase price closer to that of conventional cars, only about a thousand were sold last year. The total of 2,149 now on the road are served by 2,500 special charging points (Electric avenue – the Observer). Despite the launch of models by major manufacturers, they are likely to remain a minority interest until key issues such as cost, range, battery life and rapid battery exchange points are sorted. And, of course, they make no more sense than hydrogen-fuelled cars unless the electricity is from renewable sources.
All this strongly suggests that oil-fuelled conventional cars (and lorries, and planes and ships) will remain the norm for the next few decades. Manufacturers continue to develop and refine engines, and enormous strides have been made in fuel efficiency. Doubtless something better will come along, just as the internal combustion engine replaced the horse, but an undeveloped or unsuitable technology cannot simply be foisted on an unwilling public by eager politicians. They should encourage research and development, but stop supporting biofuels until they make economic and environmental sense.
Wednesday 8 February 2012
Are Speed Awareness Courses Legal?
In April 2007 the rules on speed camera funding were changed in recognition of the fact that cameras were being used a revenue raising first resort by speed camera partnerships, who were no longer allowed to keep the money from fines - it had to be sent to the Treasury instead. Now a way has been found around this by so-called 'Road Safety Partnerships'against a background of funding cuts by local councils for speed cameras. Revenue raised by diverting drivers caught driving over the speed limit onto 'speed awareness courses' is now being used to fund cameras as this money doesn't have to be directed to the Treasury. Private companies are often used to provide these courses and they take a slice of the profits. The cost of courses is being raised to around £110. In Staffordshire, in an effort to divert money from fines that would go otherwise to the Treasury, thresholds for being eligible for a speed awareness course have been raised from 10% plus 6mph to 10% plus 9mph over the speed limit:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Drivers-fined-pound-543-000-just-10-speed-camera/story-15041861-detail/story.html
The use of speed awareness courses poses an interesting question. Is it legal to divert drivers from the justice system for a fee paid to a 3rd party such as the police or a private company? The answer may well be NO! Someone has done some digging by making Freedom of Information Act requests to the Ministry of Justice since late 2010. Full correspondence here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/speed_awareness_course_legality
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Exceeding the speed limit is an offence, and as such has
traditionally been subject to the legal process.
I have noticed that police now have the power to avoid the legal
process and can forward some`clients`to private companies for
`reeducation` instead.
Obviously this system of bypassing the traditionally legal process
and receiving points must have been allowed by a change in the law,
and I would appreciate knowing where the amendments to the law are
described so that the terms and conditions may be viewed.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon
The upshot is that the Ministry of Justice can't provide any evidence of the required change in the law:
Dear Mr Fallon,
Thank you for your email, the information which you are requesting is
not held by the Ministry of Justice, may I suggest that you contact the
Department for Transport as they may be able to assist you with you
request.
Regards
DACU
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Drivers-fined-pound-543-000-just-10-speed-camera/story-15041861-detail/story.html
The use of speed awareness courses poses an interesting question. Is it legal to divert drivers from the justice system for a fee paid to a 3rd party such as the police or a private company? The answer may well be NO! Someone has done some digging by making Freedom of Information Act requests to the Ministry of Justice since late 2010. Full correspondence here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/speed_awareness_course_legality
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Exceeding the speed limit is an offence, and as such has
traditionally been subject to the legal process.
I have noticed that police now have the power to avoid the legal
process and can forward some`clients`to private companies for
`reeducation` instead.
Obviously this system of bypassing the traditionally legal process
and receiving points must have been allowed by a change in the law,
and I would appreciate knowing where the amendments to the law are
described so that the terms and conditions may be viewed.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon
The upshot is that the Ministry of Justice can't provide any evidence of the required change in the law:
Dear Mr Fallon,
Thank you for your email, the information which you are requesting is
not held by the Ministry of Justice, may I suggest that you contact the
Department for Transport as they may be able to assist you with you
request.
Regards
DACU
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Former Policeman and Head of Staffs Speed Cameras Speaks Out
Use of camera cash is wrong
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Use-camera-cash-wrong/story-15121369-detail/story.html
BETWEEN 1995 and 2002, I was the manager of the Staffordshire Safety Camera Office and as a police officer with experience of both community policing and as traffic officer I understood the need for unattended 24/7 cameras to monitor and enforce inappropriate speeds. My understanding was that the cameras would, if located correctly, help reduce the severity of collisions and thereby make parts of our road system safer.
The value of the cameras would therefore be measured by the reduction of offences, as well as the reduction in injuries.
I was disappointed when the Government of the time and under pressure from the police and local authorities agreed to introduce the Hypothecation Project and turned the cameras into a method of indirect taxation. I decided then to walk away from the project I had so valued.
I was and always will support the deployment of cameras to enforce speed limits.
What I object to is the management of the cameras and the way money generated from them is used. The Hypothecation project was introduced with a direct link to the Exchequer's Office.
The project was then linked directly to the number of prosecutions with the numbers being increased with each tranche of the project.
Each partnership would be required to submit targets for the amount of money raised and if they failed to reach those targets the short fall would be met by the local authority.
Needless to say it was clear from those already involved in the scheme that they would ensure that they prosecuted greater numbers to ensure the targets were met.
At meetings I attended, the forecasts were that within three to five years speeding would be as anti-social as drink driving and that it would be difficult to catch speeders as most would have been put off because of the fear of being caught.
This statement was made 10 years ago to date. I now read in The Sentinel that the police and authorities are thinking of raising the prosecution levels in order to ensure that they get a flow of drivers to attend the driver improvement scheme. This is the exact opposite to the forecasts made by the then head of North Wales Police who was in charge of the project.
At the same time the Hypothecation project was introduced Staffordshire Police and many other forces reduced their traffic policing. Overnight Staffordshire reduced the traffic patrols from 200 to less than 20.
Rather than speeding being treated as anti-social in much the way of drink driving, I get the impression that drink driving is again on the increase. Figures released for the Christmas period were I believe disappointing with drivers being caught at all hours of the day.
In truth the lack of traffic patrols and the high visibility deterrent they have on drivers, I would argue, means that the roads are in fact less safe than previously.
It is appalling cameras are now being used as almost a threat to the safety of road users in Staffordshire.
Our safety and that of the public using our roads is being measured by the amount of money it can keep raising to fund itself and while I am sure that there have been casualty reductions it is clear that the path chosen was the wrong one. More road policing officers and reduced collision hot spots should ensure safer roads.
When I was a traffic officer the Association of Chief Police Officers offered the following advice: 'Target those drivers who are most likely to cause the greatest dangers to others.' This blanket process fails to do that and therefore is seen by the majority of just another stealth tax.
STEVE WALSH Ashley Heath
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Use-camera-cash-wrong/story-15121369-detail/story.html
BETWEEN 1995 and 2002, I was the manager of the Staffordshire Safety Camera Office and as a police officer with experience of both community policing and as traffic officer I understood the need for unattended 24/7 cameras to monitor and enforce inappropriate speeds. My understanding was that the cameras would, if located correctly, help reduce the severity of collisions and thereby make parts of our road system safer.
The value of the cameras would therefore be measured by the reduction of offences, as well as the reduction in injuries.
I was disappointed when the Government of the time and under pressure from the police and local authorities agreed to introduce the Hypothecation Project and turned the cameras into a method of indirect taxation. I decided then to walk away from the project I had so valued.
I was and always will support the deployment of cameras to enforce speed limits.
What I object to is the management of the cameras and the way money generated from them is used. The Hypothecation project was introduced with a direct link to the Exchequer's Office.
The project was then linked directly to the number of prosecutions with the numbers being increased with each tranche of the project.
Each partnership would be required to submit targets for the amount of money raised and if they failed to reach those targets the short fall would be met by the local authority.
Needless to say it was clear from those already involved in the scheme that they would ensure that they prosecuted greater numbers to ensure the targets were met.
At meetings I attended, the forecasts were that within three to five years speeding would be as anti-social as drink driving and that it would be difficult to catch speeders as most would have been put off because of the fear of being caught.
This statement was made 10 years ago to date. I now read in The Sentinel that the police and authorities are thinking of raising the prosecution levels in order to ensure that they get a flow of drivers to attend the driver improvement scheme. This is the exact opposite to the forecasts made by the then head of North Wales Police who was in charge of the project.
At the same time the Hypothecation project was introduced Staffordshire Police and many other forces reduced their traffic policing. Overnight Staffordshire reduced the traffic patrols from 200 to less than 20.
Rather than speeding being treated as anti-social in much the way of drink driving, I get the impression that drink driving is again on the increase. Figures released for the Christmas period were I believe disappointing with drivers being caught at all hours of the day.
In truth the lack of traffic patrols and the high visibility deterrent they have on drivers, I would argue, means that the roads are in fact less safe than previously.
It is appalling cameras are now being used as almost a threat to the safety of road users in Staffordshire.
Our safety and that of the public using our roads is being measured by the amount of money it can keep raising to fund itself and while I am sure that there have been casualty reductions it is clear that the path chosen was the wrong one. More road policing officers and reduced collision hot spots should ensure safer roads.
When I was a traffic officer the Association of Chief Police Officers offered the following advice: 'Target those drivers who are most likely to cause the greatest dangers to others.' This blanket process fails to do that and therefore is seen by the majority of just another stealth tax.
STEVE WALSH Ashley Heath
Monday 6 February 2012
The AA Not Supporting Drivers Again
It has been reported in the press today that the 'AA' is supporting more 20mph limits in order to encourage cycling. I'm sorry, but the AA are supposed to be the 'Automobile Association' - not a cycling association - it makes no economic or transport sense to hold up the 85% of journeys for the imaginary benefit of 0.5% of journeys.
Introducing 'Transport Majority'
Transport Majority has been set up to promote the interests of those who travel by car - the genuine 'public transport' mode used for around 85% of journeys in the UK. This compares with about 6% for travel by bus, 7% for train, and 0.5% cycling. 'Modal Shift' is an agenda supported by a small minority made up mainly of local and national politicians who travel at the expense of taxpayers with 'real jobs,' the public transport industry, along with the anti-driver/anti-car lobby and industry, which includes condescending 'travel planners.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)