Welcome your new Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

I think that the war on motorists might mean putting 40mph speed cameras on a motorway (M4) that raise thousands a day in fines, whereas local schools have none outside. It could mean your local authority charging you to park outside your own house on a street that you pay to maintain. It might mean CCTV on Putney being used to bust traders unloading, but not being used to alert the police when an assault is in progress outside the station, It might mean TFL retaining details of number plates for months even if your vehicle is exempt from the charge, or ANR cameras on motorways scanning your plate and storing that data. It might even mean the DVLA selling private details to all sorts of dubious people for £2.50.

You should head over to that Bristol Blog that Sarajoy posted.

simonaspinall

I'd hate to think that Transport policy and Cycling policy is being set by a London based MP who loves driving and wants to keep cars and bikes apart.

That really is pretty worrying.

waddlie

biondino wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

All 3 comments made by Mr Hammond are essentially correct

Edit

No I wish to withdraw that and instead....

Neither of the 3 comments made by Mr Hammond seem entirely unreasonable

+1

+2.

The OP seems to have been taking lessons from Alistair Campbell.

ketsbaia

Waddlie wrote:

biondino wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

All 3 comments made by Mr Hammond are essentially correct

Edit

No I wish to withdraw that and instead....

Neither of the 3 comments made by Mr Hammond seem entirely unreasonable

+1

+2.

The OP seems to have been taking lessons from Alistair Campbell.

What, scaring government ministers away from national political debate television shows?

davmaggs

You should head over to that Bristol Blog that Sarajoy posted.

That seems a bit mean.

By all means point out an error in my post, but I would suggest that there's a lot of evidence for the authorities enforcing/writing laws that raise hard cash and neglecting those that don't (as pointed out all the time by anti-car posters). The yellow line outside my window gets patroled several times a day despite it being a backroad, but Londoners know that the Police will decline to turn up for fairly serious incidents.

Pointing that out that doesn't put me in the same camp as the lunatics who photograph bike lanes for a blog.

waddlie

ketsbaia wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

biondino wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

All 3 comments made by Mr Hammond are essentially correct

Edit

No I wish to withdraw that and instead....

Neither of the 3 comments made by Mr Hammond seem entirely unreasonable

+1

+2.

The OP seems to have been taking lessons from Alistair Campbell.

What, scaring government ministers away from national political debate television shows?

Hehe, good one. No, the OP just seemed to spin the shit out of some pretty inoffensive and innocuous comments made by a non-cycling politician.

ketsbaia

The only really worrying thing he said was about segregation. Unless they're thinking of sinking untold millions into updating the infrastructure so there are adequate separate cycle lanes (which they're not), then it signals a worrying trend. IMO, obv.

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

You should head over to that Bristol Blog that Sarajoy posted.

That seems a bit mean.

By all means point out an error in my post, but I would suggest that there's a lot of evidence for the authorities enforcing/writing laws that raise hard cash and neglecting those that don't (as pointed out all the time by anti-car posters). The yellow line outside my window gets patroled several times a day despite it being a backroad, but Londoners know that the Police will decline to turn up for fairly serious incidents.

Pointing that out that doesn't put me in the same camp as the lunatics who photograph bike lanes for a blog.

Sorry, a bit harsh. I don't have you down as a lunatic (and as you might have seen, there is some debate as to how real that blog is, especially based on one of its contributors' posts here and the fact that he's been signed up to BR for over a year). I agree that there seems to be a disparity between the way various different infringements of traffic laws are enforced. I think part of this comes from the way the roads are maintained by a mixture of local authorities and central government, and policed by a mixture of, err, the police and local authorities. Local authorities (who are generally in charge of parking) have very different priorities from the police. Combine that with the way that parking 'services' are usually sub'ed out, and it's not surprising that it becomes a bit about generating revenue as well as keeping streets clear.

To take the two examples, from a cyclist's and motorist's point of view, traders unloading on Putney High Street in the middle of the rush hour is very disruptive and fairly dangerous for cyclists, so I don't have a problem with that being dealt with (although I'm not sure CCTV is the way to do it). Speed limits - even the 40mph one on the M4 are normally there for a reason, and there's not really any excuse for getting caught on the cameras.

One other thought on CCTV - everyone is always quick to suggest checking if there is CCTV footage when someone gets knocked off. I don't think we can have it both ways.

rjsterry

I take it from the lack of response that there aren't any Weybridge & Runnymede residents who post here. A shame, as now is probably a good time to go and speak to them. They'll be keen to show they are the 'new broom'.

jw4g

davmaggs wrote:

You should head over to that Bristol Blog that Sarajoy posted.

That seems a bit mean.

By all means point out an error in my post, but I would suggest that there's a lot of evidence for the authorities enforcing/writing laws that raise hard cash and neglecting those that don't (as pointed out all the time by anti-car posters). The yellow line outside my window gets patroled several times a day despite it being a backroad, but Londoners know that the Police will decline to turn up for fairly serious incidents.

Pointing that out that doesn't put me in the same camp as the lunatics who photograph bike lanes for a blog.

Not sure how keeping a blog on cycle lanes makes you a lunatic. I thought the blogosphere was all part of free speech and democracy...
the bottom line here is that a wide spectrum of issues have been rolled up by the right-wing media into one soundbite, "the war on the motorist". There's a big difference between legitimate enforcement of the Road Traffic Act and the use of CCTV to infringe civil liberties, and tax issues are a different debate again.
Personally I drive a car but I observe the speed limit and the Highway Code. I resent having to pay for speed cameras, road humps and other all the other costs associated with traffic calming and law enforcement. Surely speeding fines should reflect these costs, which they certainly don't. I agree with a war on lawbreaking motorists in the same way I support a war on other types of crime. Don't forget that around 30,000 people are killed and seriously injured on the roads - road traffic offences have serious consequences.
I don't see any reason to roll that issue up with how to manage congestion or how to raise taxes, or indeed instances of real injustice against motorists. They're all completely different things. In fact, the costs of motoring have gone down in real terms around 10% over the past decade, so if there's a financial war on motorists, the motorists seem to be winning

AndyManc

Stevo 666 wrote:

prj45 wrote:

The Standard also states that the "war on the motorist" is over. What war?

Excessive taxes on motoring, proliferation of speed cameras etc. Do you own a car? If so, you would know what they meant.

Total Bollox, motoring has never been so affordable, car ownership has exploded even in chav/benefit town where live.

Those on minimum wage using 4x4's that were once the domain of premiership footballers.

The only ones complaining about the 'War on motorists' are those that find measures to make them comply with regulations offensive and oppressive.

Even the trainees where I work can afford vehicles where insurance costs them £2500/year, at their age, I was lucky if I could afford a moped.

You've (motorists) never had it so good.

.

tailwindhome

AndyManc wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

prj45 wrote:

The Standard also states that the "war on the motorist" is over. What war?

Excessive taxes on motoring, proliferation of speed cameras etc. Do you own a car? If so, you would know what they meant.

Total Bollox, motoring has never been so affordable, car ownership has exploded even in chav/benefit town where live.

Those on minimum wage using 4x4's that were once the domain of premiership footballers

You may be confusing 'affordable' with 'able to get a loan for'

AndyManc wrote:

The only ones complaining about the 'War on motorists' are those that find measures to make them comply with regulations offensive and oppressive.

Maybe it's the regulations they find offensive and oppressive

Stevo_666

AndyManc wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You've (motorists) never had it so good.

.

That's not the way I feel about it as a motorist. Maybe if you owned a car you'd realise? But I bet you don't..... I'm all for making life easier and better for cyclists but that does not mean the reflex action motorist bashing that some seem to advocate.

It's about more than cost, although the majority of people I speak to about it feel as if they are being milked, in particular those who cannot do without a car for whatever reason - and they are not necessarily well off at all. As mentioned above, just because you see some chav driving a 4x4 does not always mean thay can afford it.

CometGirl

Here's my thoughts on Mr. Hammond (and, incidentally, the "war on motorists" although that was shamelessly nicked from Private Eye.)

prj45

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe if you owned a car you'd realise?

I own a car and think this concept of a "war on motorists" is drama queenery in it's most distilled form.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the private motorist is actually subsidised for the miles they do.

Stevo_666

prj45 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe if you owned a car you'd realise?

I own a car and think this concept of a "war on motorists" is drama queenery in it's most distilled form.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the private motorist is actually subsidised for the miles they do.

The phrase "war" to be fair is dramatising a bit, but the sentiments remain: there are plenty of people in various positions of power who see motorists as an easy source of revenue. There are also plenty of examples of the 'powers that be' making life less easy for motorists (seemingly forgetting that this group of people probably makes up the majority of the adult population in the UK).

Where you get the idea that motorists are subsidised by the mile is utterly beyond me. for starters over 70% of the price of petrol is tax. I'd be interested to see some evidence for your 'interesting' theory.

rjsterry

Admittedly these figures are 10 years out of date, but according to the ONS, 27% of households do not have the use of a car, so a fair chunk of the population doesn't drive, either by choice or necessity.

mybreakfastconsisted

prj45 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe if you owned a car you'd realise?

I own a car and think this concept of a "war on motorists" is drama queenery in it's most distilled form.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the private motorist is actually subsidised for the miles they do.

On average, a family saloon car is subsidised by around £2000 a year. The cost of private motoring is kept artificially low so motorists pay nothing like the amount they ought to to cover the costs they inflict on society. HGV drivers are subsidised by a much larger amount.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

On average, a family saloon car is subsidised by around £2000 a year.

How is that calculated?

mybreakfastconsisted

The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become very much cheaper.

In "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

You see, average drivers receive a massive public subsidy! HGV drivers receive even more.

There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed. This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).


The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively. Then add global warming, the potential effects of which dwarf our entire economic system(. Clearly all of us, motorists and non-motorists alike, are paying for motorists to sit in their cars and pollute the environment, and paying heavily(9).


1.


This point was most definitively made in an audit of transport revenues and costs in the the year 1993, called "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books). Maddison reviews and updates his figures for air pollution in a 1998 report composed for the ETA. Results of this work demonstrate a total subsidy to the road network of between £11.2bn and £17.2bn per year. I do not quote the figures in full in the leaflet as a significant proportion of them is based on highly theoretical economic valuations of the value of human life and health. My intention here is only to demonstrate that the roads are heavily subsidised in both monetary terms and human terms - this is incontrovertible.


2.
From Department for Transport figures "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (DfT, 2004) Section 7.15 pg. 20.


3.
£6bn is an average per-year spend over the 10 year investment programme announced by the Government in July 2000, which earmarked £59bn for road infrastructure. The figure is corroborated by figures of £5.47bn spent on roads in England (from "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (Dft, 2004) Section 7 pg. 1, £266 million spent on roads in Wales (from "Welsh Transport Statistics 2004" Table 12.1), plus £356 million in Scotland (from Scottish Transport Statistics No 23: 2004 Edition, Table 11.1), making a total of £6.09bn.


4.


No authoritative figures are available for this. In Transport Trends and Transport Policies - Myths and Facts (Transport 2000) the figure of £400m is quoted for police costs directly related to road traffic, based on 1996 information. This equates to £445 million in 2003 (adjusted according to the Retail Prices Index - as with all prices quoted on this page). According to Road Safety Spending in Great Britain: Who stands to gain? (PACTS, 1996), the road safety budget of the Home Office, Departments of Transport and Health in 1995 amounted to £835m. A figure of £3bn is estimated for all police and judicial costs by Norman Bradbury, Peter Hayman and Graham Nalty in "The Great Road Transport Subsidy" (I-Greens, 1996). This figure is almost certainly a high-side estimate. It only seems safe therefore to put the figure in the range of £1bn to £3bn.


5.
This is the 'standard' figure widely quoted for the public cost of traffic congestion, based on research originally carried out in the 1980s by the British Road Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. See "Utilities' street works and the cost of Traffic Congestion" (Phil Goodwin, 2005). A more complete description of what this figure means is given and discussed on the next page.


6.
Figure calculated in "Air Pollution- A Fair Payment from Road Users" (David Maddison, Environmental Transport Association, 199 as £11.1bn and adjusted to 2003 figures.


7.
Quoted in a Royal Society for the Provention of Accidents document on road safety. No year is given for this figure, so I have not adjusted it, however the rest of the document refers to 1999/2000.


8.
Many attempts have been made to calculate an economic cost of climate change, often in terms of the marginal cost incurred by the addition of a particular amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. The paper "The Environmental Benefits from road pricing" (Santos, Rojey and Newbery, 2000) quotes a range varying from £4.6 per tonne of Carbon(tC) to £68.5/tC. In fact any figure quoted will be highly disputable.


The massive uncertainties both in the predicted effects and the economic cost of the damage and suffering make me unwilling to quote any figure for this. This complexity is a significant problem for economists, as estimates of the cost form a significant part of deducing appropriate levels of Pigouvian taxation to activities, like transportation, which have climate effects.


The Royal Society made this point in their submission to the Stern Report in February 2006: "Standard economic models inadequate to cost long term climate change impacts"
When the factor you are examining has the ability to change over decades the value of the currency unit, and the value of anything else you might use to compare it with, not to mention the structure of the economy itself, arriving at a meaningful figure is a Sysphian task. Edward Goldsmith, in "The economic cost of climate change" concludes "Whatever may happen to the economy, what is absolutely certain is that we cannot live without a relatively stable climate".
9.



If you are still in any doubt, consider these less well studied costs not mentioned in the leaflet:

Water pollution, in the form of run-off into rivers and drainage of leaking oil, break fluid, exhaust and soot from vehicles, rubber particulates from tyres and salt used in winter. Estimated at between £500m and £1bn in 1993 in "Charging transport users for environmental and social costs" (David Newbery, Cambridge University, 1997). Compare with estimates of 6600 million DM (£3.13bn in 2003 prices) per year for Germany in 1992, quoted in "Transport for a sustainable future - the case for Europe" (John Whitelegg, Belhaven Press, 1993), and $29bn (£16.2bn) per year for the US in 2004, quoted in "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" by Todd Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2005).

Noise pollution, in the form of lowered house prices, spoilt natural areas, ill-health and disturbed sleep. Estimates include £3.9bn from "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books), and £3.1bn (both at 2003 prices) from "The Real Costs of Motoring" (Chris Bowers, Environmental Transport Association, 1996).

Safety, in the form of fencing, footbridges and other structures used to separate pedestrians from traffic. This includes costs paid by local councils and private landowners.


Vibration damage, to buildings and utilities such as gas and water mains. The costs are born by users of the utilties and owners of the properties and probably also easily run into billions of pounds. An estimates for vibration damage in New York City alone came to $869 million in a year - see "The hidden costs of car and truck use in New York estimated for the year 2000" (Konheim & Ketcham, 1996).
Cost to health due to lack of exercise. In the current obesity epidemic it is worth noting that motorised road transport demands less activity than almost any other form of transport.

Insurance.
Car insurance is a competitive business. Figures released by the Association of British Insurers show that the payouts to road users were not covered by the premiums.

The average shortfall for the five years from 1988 to 1992 was £626 million per year. In other words, insurance companies are charging more on other kinds of insurance to subsidise motorists.

The myth of the over-taxed motorist is encouraged by the media and swallowed by the gullible.

Motorists are freeloaders.

tailwindhome

Sorry I asked now

mybreakfastconsisted

Speed cameras are no more part of a "War On Motorists" than city centre CCTVs are a "War On People Who Urinate In Shop Doorways".

prj45

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

If you are still in any doubt, consider these less well studied costs not mentioned in the leaflet:

Also the amount of money that's gone into propping up the industry recently, loans, government buyouts, car scrappage schemes etc...

CometGirl

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Speed cameras are no more part of a "War On Motorists" than city centre CCTVs are a "War On People Who Urinate In Shop Doorways".

Well, city centre CCTV sort of is a war on people who urinate in shop doorways. They're NOT a war or tax on the Law Abiding Shopper (TM).

Speed cameras are NOT a tax on the Law Abiding Motorist (TM) but probably are a war on people who break the roolz.

We know the difference between Mrs. Miggins doing her weekly shop and a yobbo pissing on the local war memorial - why isn't there such a pronounced difference between the average motorist and a lawbreaking one?

Stevo_666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Motorists are freeloaders.

Get real FFS.

I deleted most of the quote above as it just goes to show you can prove anything with surveys, statistics some wide ranging assumptions and attempts to quantify what cannot ralistically be quantified. At least you are transparent enough to quote an organisation whose name includes the word 'environmental', so no prizes for guessing where their bias lies :roll:

If our glorious government thought they could lie their way out of the fact that they are fleecing motorists, they would. But in this case even the politician don't try it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10303.htm
Para 7 is quite self explanatory....

Given that some people on this thread are slavish enough to simply obey any speed limit that the local authorities choose for a road regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, then the Government's word should be good enough in this case Either that or they are sanctimonious liars - who has honestly never broken a speed limit?

you may as well face it, as much as a bunch of blinkered, car-haters jump up and down and bash the car, it's not going away. The internal combustion engines days are numbers as the oil supply is finite: and the sooner we can get the tech for workable electric and/or hydrogen powered cars (that do not indirectly burn more fossil fuels) the better. However the car with a different propulsion system is here to stay for the forseeable future. Unless you have a better idea?

prj45

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that some people on this thread are slavish enough to simply obey any speed limit that the local authorities choose for a road regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, then the Government's word should be good enough in this case Either that or they are sanctimonious liars - who has honestly never broken a speed limit?

There's breaking a speed limit, and persistently breaking speed limits.

Stevo 666 wrote:

you may as well face it, as much as a bunch of blinkered, car-haters jump up and down and bash the car, it's not going away.

Er, who's asking for that. All I ask is that they're driven with the due care and responsibility that befits the moving of a one tonne lump of metal around at high speeds.

And I tell you, many are not, as I'm sure you know.

rjsterry

As I mentioned before, although I don't drive myself, we do own a car, and i pay for the vast majority of it's running costs. Whilst it's possible to do without a car, with a 10-month-old, the car makes things vastly easier, so no car-hater here. It's not some sort of human right though.

I'm sure my wife wouldn't claim never to have broken a speed limit, but we are both of the opinion that if we did get caught on a camera, then fair cop (or camera, assuming our number plate hadn't been cloned).

If we all start only obeying the speed limits and other traffic regulations we feel appropriate, then we're heading for a free for all. One other point: anyone with a basic grasp of physics will know why 'just going a few miles an hour over the limit' makes a big difference to your stopping distance, and the chances of you or the person you hit surviving if there is a collision.

Eau Rouge

As a motorist and a cyclist I do not regard cars breaking the speed limit as a major issue. Inappropriate speeding is, but that really isn't anything to do with speed limits
There are a lot more things I'd like to see being dealt with before sending another patrol out with some laser guns.

wgwarburton

Eau Rouge wrote:

As a motorist and a cyclist I do not regard cars breaking the speed limit as a major issue. Inappropriate speeding is, but that really isn't anything to do with speed limits
There are a lot more things I'd like to see being dealt with before sending another patrol out with some laser guns.

+1

The thing that gets me is the assumption of many people that they have a right to drive. Using a car is so pervasive these days that it's no longer considered a luxury, and (perhaps as a result?) there is an attitude that everyone should be able to drive if they want to and that details like insurance, taxation, MoTs etc are just government trying to make life difficult for the "ordinary motorist". Evidence of this comes through with the attitude to convictions ("I need my license for my job!" , "Oh, OK then") and people who drive without insurance ("It's a rip-off, I can't afford it!").

Cheers,
W.

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... -motorists