“Gearing up – An investigation into safer cycling in London” has now been produced by the London Assembly Transport Committee .
On holiday in south east France I chanced upon this story in the local daily newspaper, Le Dauphiné Libéré. The 76 year old motorist had driven over the (obvious) footway into the well signed exit stairway from the train station at Romans, apparently thinking that this was the access to a car park.
No, it didn’t come from Government or the “road safety” lobby. It comes from the mainstream Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) which calls for an end to delays in fuel duty increases. It is not radical in its recommendation – calling for no further cuts in fuel duty, rather than an increase. Nevertheless, a mainstream think tank opposing the ideas that there is a war on motorists” and that fuel duty should not be increased is welcome. Here is what they say in summary: Continue reading
This is our response to the DfT’s “A consultation on changes to the treatment of penalties for careless driving and other motoring offences” . It states that the Government recognises that “careless driving is a serious road safety problem”. Do the proposals treat it as such? No, we don’t think so. The measure proposed is pathetic with regard to the scale of suggested FPN ticketing, with inadequate fines and an unjustified reliance on remedial training of offenders. Here is our response: Continue reading
Let’s look at the rest of TfL’s “Towards a Road Safety Action Plan for London: 2020” It is basically the usual confusions, distortions and misguided mythology of “road safety” ideology. We have outlined some of the typical problems here, and, as always, suggest a look at: John Adams’ “Risk and Freedom: the record of road safety regulation” and a short discussion in his “Managing transport risks: what works?” Let’s consider some of the points made in the TfL document: Continue reading