Dazzled by Headlights?

Photo by Mike on Pexels.com

If you are dazzled by the headlights of on-coming vehicles you will be interested in a recent Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on this subject. It was commenced in response to a petition on this subject.

As headlights have got more powerful and the population has aged, this is a growing problem. An ageing population means there is more prevalence of people with cataracts which may not be bad enough to prompt them to have a cataract replacement operation but may deter them from driving in the dark.

The Government has commissioned independent research into this issue but the problem seems to quite clear already. See  https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f3f97249-7bc5-424f-8850-a9537296720d?in=11:00:05 to listen to the debate.

Incidentally as someone who had cataract operations some years ago I don’t find car headlights much of a problem, but I do have a problem with the bright, flashing lights now used by cyclists. These I find both distracting and liable to conceal on-coming vehicles. I think they should be made illegal.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Another 4 Years of Sadiq Khan, and Rail Renationalisation plus a Petition to Sign and a Public Consultation

So in London we have another 4 years of Sadiq Khan as Mayor. That will certainly mean higher Council taxes and more taxes on motorists. Sadiq Khan helped himself to win the election by promising free school meals to primary pupils and no rises in public transport fares – paid for out of your taxes of course.

With a possible Labour Government in Parliament, the outlook is indeed bleak for financial prudency. Labour have promised to “renationalise” the railways when part of the rail network is already in Government ownership and all of it is very heavily subsidised. The Taxpayers Alliance have published a note on this subject showing how misconceived it is – see https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/briefing_railway_renationalisation . As the article points out, “Three of the four largest subsidies given to franchises in 2022-23 were given to renationalised railway services with £697 million, £602 million and £402 million given to ScotRail, Northern and South Eastern respectively”. That’s not peanuts!

Boris Johnson has pointed out that Transport for London (TfL) has been “bankrupted” by Sadiq Khan and he is right. Massive subsidies coming out of taxpayers and motorist’s pockets are the only thing keeping it afloat. Khan wants billions more pounds in subsidies which he might get from a Labour Government, or from a London road tax which he has already asked for.

Three ways that taxes are likely to be raised in London on motorists are by ULEZ schemes,  LTNs and road charging “pay per mile” schemes. There is a new Parliamentary Petition you can sign to enable these to be controlled by Government. Please sign it:  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659730

There is also a Public Consultation on “Restricting the Generation of Surplus Funds from Traffic Contraventions” from the Department for Transport – see https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions . This is definitely worth responding to as it is clear that many local councils are abusing their powers simply because they wish to raise money to fill their budget holes. It’s not about improving road safety or regulating traffic or parking.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

It’s Election Day – You Need to Vote!

Today is election day for Londoners, and for many other parts of the country.

In London other contenders have been catching up on Sadiq Khan according to the latest opinion polls. But he is still likely to win the vote for Mayor as the opposition is split and so many people don’t vote.

So it is extremely important to get out there and vote today!

Personally I have voted for Susan Hall as the only person with a real chance of ousting the liar Sadiq Khan, the destroyer of London’s transport network with his Transport Strategy. But I voted for Reform Party candidates for the other positions. Some tactical voting is the order of the day.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Debate in Parliament on LTNs

I have received the following from Parliament:

You recently signed the petition “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

The MPs on the Petitions Committee have scheduled a debate on the petition on Monday 20 May.

Share your view. To inform the debate, you can answer our survey (everyone reading this should respond) : https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSpMLsAawCSdBvMh9cdt5o9ZUODBSVFBTREpKRjZKVlBQREo0MkI1VlZQRi4u

Your responses will be anonymous. A summary of responses will be published on the Parliament website. It will also be shared with MPs and may be referred to in the debate or within other parliamentary documents. Please don’t share anything that may identify you.

The debate will take place on Monday 20 May at 4.30pm. Watch the debate: https://youtube.com/live/MNvIS8k1aSc

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Ban 20 MPH Speed Limits on Major Roads

Here’s a Parliamentary Petition worth signing: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652269

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Abolish the GLA

These words were recently received: How to abolish the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, and Transport for London? During the mid-1980s, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took the control of London Transport away from the Greater London Council and then abolished the Greater London Council by simply changing legislation in parliament. Then in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour was elected into government, he held a referendum on establishing the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, which led to the Congestion Charge in 2003. The referendum held in 1998 had a yes vote of 72.01%, but the voter turnout was low, just at 34.1%, and they still went ahead despite no voter threshold! There’s no law requiring a referendum to abolish the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. Here are the instructions: 1. Lobby your Member of Parliament and the members of the Lords to submit a bill in Parliament to repeal the ‘Greater London Authority Act 1999’ and the relevant legislation to immediately abolish the Greater London Authority. This includes contacting the local political party groups where they have their MPs elected. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/ https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/get-in-touch-with-members/ 2. Mention to your MP and the Lord why it is important for them to change the law by abolishing the Mayor of London, the GLA, and transferring the control of London’s transport back to government control. Specifically mention how abolishing the Mayor of London will help reduce council tax for residents in London, services will be improved under government control (such as London Transport), corruption and embezzlement will be reduced, and road users will not face any charges (Congestion Charge, ULEZ etc.) when they drive into London once the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is repealed. 3. Contact your local councillors to support the bill by passing a motion in their local council; this includes the benefits of abolishing the Greater London Authority. 4. Share this message with various groups, including anti-ULEZ and road user groups, for further support. 5. Keep pressuring the MPs and Lords to get the law repealed. The Conservative government still has the majority in the House of Commons to stop the ULEZ by simply changing the law, but they refuse to do so! These instructions are really simple; the cause of the problem is the lawmakers, as they have the power to improve our lives by changing the law! If they refuse to abide by these instructions or to support the abolition of the GLA, They are implicit; this includes the trade unions that are backing the Labour Party, as they are scabs and traitors to the working class with their incompetence.

Why a Cost/Benefit Analysis Should Always Be Done

If a politician proposes any measure to improve road safety, they should do a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, work out whether the proposal will save more in financial terms than it costs.

The benefit of any road safety scheme can be estimated by looking at the likely reduction in casualties and what they might be worth. For example, the Department for Transport (DfT) publishes estimated costs of accidents – these are £2.2 million for a fatal casualty, £250,000 for a serious injury and £20,000 for a slight injury. One can argue as to whether these are accurate and realistic estimates. Some people argue that they are pessimistic – for example would you pay £20,000 to avoid a minor bruise or cut that did not require hospital treatment? But they do provide a good starting point for any examination of any proposed scheme. The cost of any proposed scheme can usually be estimated fairly closely and it’s not difficult to estimate the likely reduction in casualties from looking at the historic records of police reports on accidents on a stretch of road.

For example, take the wide-area 20 mph limit schemes that are springing up everywhere, particularly in London. From research published by the DfT these are known to have minimal or negligible impact on casualties. But they cost a lot of money to implement – to put up signs, maintain them and the associated road markings, and to enforce them by the police.

In reality spending money on such schemes might be much better spent on other road safety measures – such as education and road engineering to improve accident black spots. Reducing traffic speeds alone costs money in driver and passenger wasted time (bus passengers can be badly affected for example).

A recent article published by the Telegraph (see link below) shows that many London councils do not do any cost/benefit analysis on new schemes. They rely solely on the often mis-informed views of councillors. This irrational behaviour is one reason why London is now the world’s slowest city as reported by satnav company TomTom.

Transport for London (TfL) has spent millions of pounds on it’s Vision Zero plan to cut casualties by reducing speed limits – to no obvious effect (see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/ ).

If people wish to reduce road casualties, they need to do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed scheme, and compare it to the alternatives. All we tend to get at the moment is prejudiced opinions from ill-informed commentators.

Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/12/london-councils-did-not-do-cost-benefit-analysis/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

London Election Recommendations

On the 2nd of May we have the elections in London for the Mayor and London Assembly members. Elections will also take place for councils and mayors in England and police and crime commissioners in England and Wales.

In London if you wish to have a postal vote rather than vote in person you need to apply as soon as possible and don’t forget that you will need a photo-id for the first time if you are voting in person.

A poll of 1,019 Londoners by Survation revealed the incumbent Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan may get 44% of the vote, with his Conservative rival, Susan Hall, on 26% – eighteen points behind. The Liberal Democrats’ Rob Blackie, and Zoe Garbett, the Green Party candidate, are level on 7%, with Reform UK’s Howard Cox on 5%. A Savanta poll for the Centre for London put the Labour mayor on 51 per cent and the Tory contender 27 per cent.

It appears that Sadiq Khan is very likely to get re-elected although with almost a month to go to polling day the situation could change. Why is Sadiq Khan doing so well when crime in London has got much worse and his claims on house building are a gross distortion of the truth? Council taxes have also risen because of the Mayor’s precept and the ULEZ scheme has added to motoring costs very substantially. Perhaps because he has promised to cap public transport fare rises and offered free meals to primary school children. His claims that the ULEZ scheme has reduced air pollution in London are false but the public has not seen through his lies.

The May London election for Mayor will be held using the first-past-the-post system for the first time, meaning voters will no longer be able to vote for a second preference candidate. That is most unfortunate. So if you hate Sadiq Khan as I do then the only alternative is some tactical voting – in essence to choose the candidate with reasonable policies and most likely to win.

I have supported both the Conservative and Reform Parties in the past but there seems little chance that Howard Cox of Reform will get enough votes this year. It takes time to build a new party machine in a new region and London is a particularly difficult territory due to the tendency for voters to vote on traditional national party lines or on ethnic prejudices compounded by the fraudulent use of postal votes.

I will therefore likely be voting for Susan Hall unless the picture changes between now and polling day. But I will be voting for Reform candidates in the Assembly Member elections.

You can see the full list of candidates for Mayor here: https://www.londonelects.org.uk/media-centre/london-mayoral-candidates-announced

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

How Councils Rake in Money from Fines

Many local councils are generating millions of pounds in fines from LTNs and moving traffic offences. They use this as a source of income due to the financial pressures they are under.

A good example is Hammersmith & Fulham in London who are getting £1 million a month from a single Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. This is from camera enforced PCNs which numbered 341,000 in 11 months. Local M.P. Greg Hands launched a petition against the scheme which got over 5,000 signatures and there is widespread local opposition.

The scheme creates enormous difficulties for local residents and businesses as delivery vehicles will often get fined. There are some exceptions for local residents and taxis but the number of fines issued tells you that the council has a very strong financial incentive to promote this scheme regardless – see  https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood-project

Telegraph article:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/30/hammersmith-fulham-council-ltn-pcn-fines-one-million-month/

Comment: this way of raising money using the excuse of the need to reduce air pollution is unprincipled and immoral. Sadiq Khan has been doing this with the ULEZ scheme and local councils should not be using camera enforced schemes to generate income. There is little evidence of environmental benefit and most of the people fined are visitors who get caught through ignorance of the scheme, or get routed through it by satnav systems.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Calls to Scrap Single Justice Procedure

Up to 60% of criminal cases are now handled by courts using the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). These are mainly cases where no plea has been entered for unknown reasons and the case is dealt with by magistrates (typically only one) in secret. The defendant is not present and there is no public access to a hearing which can last as little as one minute.

Such cases are for those of speeding offences and other motoring offences, non-payment of television licence fees and truancy. The Magistrates’ Association – representing Justices of the Peace – has called for an overhaul of the system which has resulted in vulnerable people being prosecuted without being present or having any legal representation. Letters of mitigation are often ignored.

The Ministry of Justice is apparently considering some changes.

Comment: this is an example where justice has been undermined by the desire to save money. If you get prosecuted for a motoring offence make sure you enter a plea and go to court to explain any mitigating circumstances if you are pleading guilty. Plead not guilty if you think the prosecution is unreasonable. You do not need legal representation to do this.

See these Telegraph articles for more information:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/25/magistrates-secret-court-for-speeding-and-licence-fees

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/single-justice-procedure-magistrates-courts-secret-chalk

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.