It’s all too easy for me to sit and rant about the ridiculous state of transport in this country, without offering up some sensible solutions. I really don’t think it’s that difficult to sort out the various motoring issues. Trying to tax cars off the road is not the answer. Let’s look at some possibilities…
The Driving Test
Anyone who drives for any length of time on Britain’s roads will be acutely aware that a large proportion of the people driving are completely inept. They can’t control their vehicles. They’ve forgotten what road signs mean and who has right of way. They can’t park. Utterly hopeless.
The current driving test still features almost nothing on the actual workings of a car. How do you expect someone to master driving when they don’t even understand how the brakes work, what a clutch does, or where the oil goes. Basic car mechanical theory should form a part of the test, along with a detailed section on how to check that a car is safe and roadworthy before taking a trip.
The driving test should include advanced subjects such as skid management and motorway driving. It needs to be far more involved.
There should be a minimum number of supervised hours behind the wheel – just like obtaining a pilot’s licence. I had 7 driving lessons before I passed my test. That’s 7 supervised hours on the road. I have learned my skills by watching others and through practical use, but I was not a good driver when I passed my test. I had plenty of near misses that could have turned out much worse, and could have been avoided with more training.
In this country, young motorcycle riders are limited to low horsepower machines for the first two years. The same should be true of young drivers. This would eliminate a lot of the utter twattery that goes on near McDonald’s drive-thrus throughout the land.
The most important change needed is that people need to be re-tested at regular intervals. The intervals are shorter for young people (or newly qualified drivers) and old people. If they are found to be inept behind the wheel they should be forced to re-do their training. This process encourages people to achieve a better standard and the standard of drivers as a whole will lift. The result is that many of the completely inept will be unable to pass the test, which results in fewer cars on the road, and a large portion of the unsafe drivers will be gone.
Speed Cameras, Speed Limits & Congestion
Speed cameras should be removed from all single carriageway roads in favour of more police. Instead, let’s put the speed cameras on the motorways. Average speed cameras on motorways will ensure motorists keep within the sensible limits, thus freeing up the traffic police who spend all their time on the motorways to police the A roads. Removing cameras and ludicrous limits from A roads will relieve congestion, and reduce pollution. Think about it. Modern cars are at their most economical around 56mph. So, where appropriate, the national speed limit should be in place. Further, on some main roads, minimum speed limits should be introduced. And, on the motorways, it would be sensible to raise the limit to 80mph.
If a driver is free to move on the main roads and is not being impeded by ludicrous limits (I give you the A38 from Taunton to Bristol as example of this), then he will be perfectly happy to drive at 20mph by a school or through a town centre. Bear in mind that we will have legislated the majority of unsafe drivers off the road with the tougher test.
On the topic of 20mph outside schools – I completely agree with this. BUT, I don’t expect to be crawling along at 20mph outside a school at 6pm or at the weekend. Variable speed limits would be more appropriate here.
The current set of limits is ridiculous. The real danger areas are normally ignored. Most of Britain’s winding roads are national speed limit. 60mph down a lane only wide enough for one vehicle? What about the housing estates where children play and idiots thrash their cars? Instead, the roads where we need to relieve congestion are the ones that are crippled by a nonsense “Speed Kills” policy. Why focus on the busier roads? More money from cameras. It’s wrong and it needs to be changed.
Public Transport
Rubbish. Never on time. Expensive. Dangerous. That’s Britain’s public transport system. To take the bus from Ilminster to Taunton (12 miles) costs £5.10. Why would I pay that when I can take my car for less?
The railways are a complete joke and need to be re-nationalised and subsidised as soon as possible. You can fly to the States for less money than a return ticket from London to Newcastle – and you’d be much safer too. Every other country in Europe invests in their railways. They are clean, modern, cheap, fast and safe. A real alternative to car travel.
The £24billion that the government handed out to Northern Rock could have been used to sort this mess out. The government always has money to spend on the things they want to spend on, like nuclear subs, military satellites, space programs and all the other non-essential crap they waste tax payers’ money on.
Anyone else got some ideas?
See also:
Part 1: Oppressive Taxation
Part 2: Road Safety
“Public Transport
Rubbish. Never on time. Expensive. Dangerous. That’s Britain’s public transport system. To take the bus from Ilminster to Taunton (12 miles) costs £5.10. Why would I pay that when I can take my car for less?”
Here the buses are on time and every six minutes.
42.5p per mile to Taunton: no land given over to parking and no parking costs; less emissions than the equivalent cars and passengers; less chance of injury to vulnerable road users; no road fund licence or insurance required, and no depreciation costs. I doubt very much that your car moves at very much less than 42.5p per mile.
A diesel bus engine belches out 120 times more carcenagens than my unleaded engine. My car is depreciating only very slowly, so yes I can run it for much less than 42.5p per mile – and I can run on time.
Less chance of injury? I think I would rather be hit by a car that has been designed to crumple effectively for pedestrians than by a bus.
On the insurance point, if I am involved in an accident in my car I am protected legally and any medical expenses are covered – not so if I take the bus.
My time is billable at £50 per hour. Factor that in for buses that are sporadic and don’t run on time, and there is no contest – I’ll take the car thanks.
Actually, I’d rather not be hit by either. I’ve never been hit by a car but some asshole bus driver did knock me off my bike once and drove on without stopping.
Gen Comment in reply to the above and a few words which I’m sure will generate a response or two:
I should warn readers that I have attended a few road traffic collisions in my time and seen the consequences of same over the years and would go as far as to suggest my outlook on traffic, drivers behaviour amongst a few other topics tends to be rather hardline as it appears (to me at least) that nothing will be done to change things for the better unless people speak their mind in an honest and experienced manner. I don’t intend to abuse or embarrass anyone but if you are please accept my apology now.
I’d agree with most of the comments re the Driving Test and Public Transport however to generalise is a mistake which a lot of us do and results in long “going round in circles” (excuse the pun) arguements. In some areas however I believe public transport is better than others but I would say it needs to be vastly improved throughout the whole country. In my impression the UK is miles behind, in the user friendly stakes, when it comes to a lot of things especially public transport, roads infrastructure, litter, social skills, education, handing out appropriate (and I mean appropriate) sentences to those who break the law at varying levels and the provision of a professional health service which works. Hats off to the doctors and nurses but the management of the system sucks.
The current driving test is also in need of re-vamping to help improve the overall bad state of most if not all drivers…let’s face it we all have bad habits of one description or another and all it takes is one small mistake and a dangerous situation arises. I recently hitched a lift to the airport from my dad who is nearly 70 and has all his faculties, plays golf 3 times a week, gardens, uses the PC to communicate all over the world and attends many business meetings. Whilst driving along the road the traffic lights changed to red. His speed and road position were ok but he drove on through the red light without stopping. When I immediately quizzed him about his reasoning he replied “Sure there was nothing coming on the other road and it’s not busy anyway and I couldn’t be bothered changing gear to stop”. Not that reassuring is it? If one driver has that frame of mind I bet there are thousands of others who think and do the same. There are believe me; I watched them for all of my career then had to tell their relatives they were dead. Needless to say I wasn’t too impressed and won’t be getting into his car ever again.
I also think the word “accident” should be removed from road traffic legislation and general speak, as there is no such act – let’s put this into context, if Driver A pulls out in front of Driver B and B hits A it’s hardly an accident is it? I would say Driver A who may use the saying “He wasn’t there when I looked” as an excuse failed to drive correctly. As a means to stop careless and dangerous driving in what in essence is a moving killing machine, I feel offenders should be prosecuted and given a heavy fine or prison sentence for all incidents causing damage or injury to another through negligence, to make the point that we are driving around in a lethal weapon if not used correctly. Let’s face it Driver B wasn’t in Dr Who’s tardis and he didn’t just materialise, did he? Answer “No” but negligence caused the collision. Example scenario – if a soldier in Iraq shoots someone illegally they are subjected to the court process and if found guilty face imprisonment, well why not do the same with drivers who cause damage or injury because they too used a lethal weapon illegally. The present points system is totally useless. We need heavy fines for each so called accident to impress on people that they are driving about in lethal weapons if not used correctly and as such hit their pocket or send them to jail to prove the point.
I also agree that there should be re-testing on a regular basis with those who passed their test most recently and those who passed their test many years ago or even not at all being re-tested / tested more frequently…Did you know that the older drivers in this country may not have even taken a driving test? Now there’s something to talk about another time! That’s not being discriminatory by any means but is aimed at those groups who appear to be most at risk – minefield to undertake but I really do think it is necessary to help reduce the carnage on the roads. I also believe foreign nationals who bring their vehicles from their home countries into the UK should have their vehicles inspected as in an MOT equivalent test at an appropriate time after their arrival in the UK as some of these vehicles are not roadworthy and no one appears to be policing this matter as a foreign number plated vehicle could be a driven around for months or years un taxed by an immigrant pretending to be a tourist on a short trip. Your thoughts? The internet is a great way to let off some steam isn’t it?
Great comment there. I realise that I am generalising in my argument, but the simple truth remains that better educated drivers are safer drivers. I like your point about the word “accident” being a misnomer. Someone is usually at fault.
Also, there are a lot of great drivers out there that are young and old, and it may be unfair to lump them all in the category of less safe drivers or test them more frequently, but there is always a price for achieving the greater good.
Of course, with the decrepit public transport system as it is, you couldn’t introduce any measures to reduce number of drivers on the road.
My real point was that the government sticks to ridiculous mantras like “speed kills”, manipulates statistics (see my comments on KSI in a previous post), and then uses all this to lower speed limits (thus creating congestion) and adding speed cameras (which are an affront to civil liverties). Then when the roads are all jammed up, they just tax us until we bleed in the hope that we’ll stop using our cars. This is not a solution to any problems, and these people in power need to think outside the box and come up with some more radical solutions. The traffic problem will never go away.
A good debate is needed, and more importantly, better public education. Too many people just believe the statistics that the road safety spin doctors publish, without ever realising that the figures are manipulated and road deaths (which were in decline until the introduction of speed cameras) are going up.
Very valid point on the foreign cars thing too. I know of people that have bought foreign cars just to avoid paying tax, MoT and insurance.
David Hurst Says:
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
My time is billable at £50 per hour. Factor that in for buses that are sporadic and don’t run on time, and there is no contest – I’ll take the car thanks.
Well of course you will but the time is coming when you will not be able to. For you it is about your convenience with little regard for the effect on vulnerable road users.
There are just too many cars for our roads. People should be first. At the moment cars get priority, even parking on pavements has become the norm, but it will change.
Oh dear, now it’s getting personal.
I have to run a business. Other people and their families depend upon me for their wages. In order to keep them employed and continue contributing to my local economy, it is entirely necessary for me to visit clients and potential clients, attend seminars, run workshops – and none of this can be achieved by public transport.
I _would_ use public transport, if it was possible, but there’s no realistic alternative in rural areas. Don’t assume that just because public transport is OK in your area that it’s a viable alternative for everyone.
Public transport is FAR too expensive. Every other country in Europe that I have visited, and the USA, has better, cleaner, more regular, safer AND cheaper public transport. Why? Because their governments recognise that the solution to the problem lies in providing sensible alternatives, not in bleeding people dry.
I don’t understand what you mean by “vulnerable road user”. Roads are primarily for motorised vehicles. Are you thinking of pedestrians? Pedestrians are not road users – they may cross roads at designated points, or they may walk on the road where there is no pavement, but I fail to see how a bus is less dangerous than a car in these circumstances. Ditto for cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
People should not get priority on a road. That’s just nonsense. Roads are for vehicular traffic. What’s next? No cars? The economy will fail. No trucks? The economy will fail.
No the problem here is a government that doesn’t believe in addressing the cause of the problem and too many people using the road when they don’t need to.
I find it amazing that you are so quick to judge me when you know nothing about my driving habits. I don’t have little regard for other road users – I’ve not indicated anything of the sort. I don’t park on pavements. That’s my whole point – I want to see these type of drivers OFF the road. I am not one of them.
Additionally, I have booked my car in for a conversion to LPG – a much greener fuel – at a personal cost of almost £2000.
I see a huge problem and I presented some ideas. I welcome the opinions of others who are proposing solutions to the problems. There’s no place here for personal attack and I won’t publish future comments of this nature. Why not instead propose some practical solutions to the problem and let’s all have a good-natured debate.
Truth is we won’t change anything. The government will stick to its speed kills mantra and keep more cars on more roads for longer periods of time. Here’s something to consider:
If a speed limit on an A road is dropped from 60 to 30, every car takes twice as long to complete its journey, and due to the nature of fuel consumption in cars, creates something in the region of 300% more pollution. Every car is on a given stretch of road for twice as long, creating congestion which in turn creates more pollution. The environmental cost is catastrophic.
A cynic might wonder about how the government’s tax coffers might be affected by road users consuming 1/3 less in fuel. Perhaps it’s not in the financial interests of the government to actually consider viable alternatives.
Well Dexey tell us how to change it and if I think it will work I will be the first to join you in campaigning for it to happen. That’s a promise. Of course Joe Public will opt to use his/her car simply because it provides convenience. Only those who have no access to a car, car parking, or just feel the option of public transport suits their needs better use our delapadated public transport systems – which I sometimes do as well but I doubt there is one person in the country who would agree with the following statement – “Trains and buses in the area I work and or live ALWAYS run on time, are clean, never break down, the staff are courteous, helpful and deal with my concerns promptly and correctly”. Who may I ask are these vulnerable road users you mention? As far as I’m concerned when I step out of my house onto the public highway either as a pedestrian or car driver I am as vulnerable as the next guy. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that those who don’t drive are the vulnerable ones in society. Where does vulnerable come into it or have I missed something? I do agree with your comment re too many cars on the roads but hey don’t blame the cars drivers blame the government and the “Fat Cats” for taking your money and NOT improving the public transport systems. I was a keen cyclist for years and would encourage anyone to ride to work or anywhere else for that matter but I can understand why people don’t cycle on our roads due to the seriously bad or non existent network and general standard of cycle paths – compare these and our roads to other EU countries and you will know what I am talking about. Change of tack slightly – why do local councils allow contractors to lay a new road surface to have it dug up a few weeks or months later by another contractor? Again other EU countries manage this specific subject much better – I once watched a road junction being built over a number of days in an EU country and it was a sight to behold. Each contractor arrived at the correct time after the previous one had completed his work and everything feel into place, cables were put underground, traffic lights were working in minutes, road markings marked out and not a spot of litter or grit left behind after they had all gone home. I can only continue to be totally miffed as to the management skills of those responsible for this countries infrastructure. You may ask “why don’t you go and live in these EU countries”? and my answer would be “Because I don’t want to”.
Well said Huggie.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect public transport to work 100% of the time – nothing’s perfect, but currently performance is shambolic. My wife’s family live in Colchester and we make use of the bus for visiting. It’s terrible. More than 50% of the time, the bus is late, and not just by a few minutes. Usually by an hour or more. Plus, Colchester to Taunton on the bus requires sitting at Victoria Station for over 2 hours for a connecting bus. The price is about £28, which for a 240 mile journey is actually reasonable. Amazing to consider I could only do the Ilminster to Taunton journey I mentioned above 5 or 6 times for the same amount, and that would only be 70 miles!
Firstly, my apologies I hadn’t intended to make it personal. I am sorry for that.
Secondly, ideas, and I agree that we will not change anything. Let me declare my interest: I am a driver when I have to be, a cycle tourist in leisure time and a public transport user when I can. I’m also a pedestrian because that is the easy way to get between public transport points. I am a city dweller but have also lived in the countryside. I choose to live in the city for the immediacy of its services and pay for them through my rates and by using them. I am not ‘green’, Friend of the Earth, or a ‘global warming is our fault’ fanatic.
I don’t see, expect or want, any future, without the ice. It is being constantly developed and improved. I do believe that ownership of personal ice transport is a becoming a big problem and the right to own and drive a car needs regulation because there are too many cars on our island, and I mean cars not delivery vans, lorries, coaches or buses.
I would like the onus in an accident to be on the car driver involved in an accident with a vulnerable road user. The car driver to be the one required to prove that the vulnerable road user was at fault through acting either illegally or recklessly. That is the situation in Germany and some other North European countries. I expect that will happen because of increasing Europisation. It will encourage those driving in cars to be more considerate of the vulnerable road users.
I would like to see the main road corridors kept free of pedestrians and cyclists and dedicated routes available to them. I would prefer those dedicated routes to be direct, where possible and not decided in terms of the ‘needs’ of car drivers.
Off the main road corridors I would like to see a 20mph limit. Such a limit gives the vulnerable road user a better chance of living through a collision with a motor vehicle, and reduces noise and pollution. Residential areas should be for living in and occasional use by drivers as necessary.
Lastly, out of many other points, I would like a system of insurance that ensured that every motorist was adequately insured.
There you go, debate at leisure. Nothing will change immediately but 20mph limits are on there way – DoT circular 1/2006 makes that clear – and a few more deaths, along with Europisation will bring the other things in, I am sure. Maybe not in my lifetime but eventually.
Sorry Huggie but I didn’t read your post thoroughly.
“Who may I ask are these vulnerable road users you mention? As far as I’m concerned when I step out of my house onto the public highway either as a pedestrian or car driver I am as vulnerable as the next guy. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that those who don’t drive are the vulnerable ones in society. Where does vulnerable come into it or have I missed something?”
VRU’s are defined as pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians; the soft shelled ones who get maimed, damaged and killed by those driving the hard shells.
Every driver is a vru out of their car; in it they are only vulnerable to others of similar type.
It’s interesting to hear these thoughts. Personally, I don’t have a problem with 20MPH limits on housing estates, town centres and schools, but if these start filtering through to villages and main roads it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Additionally, limits outside schools on main routes should be variable: 20MPH in school time, 30MPH otherwise.
The problem will be that the government will see this as an ideal opportunity to whack up a load more speed cameras and capitalise on the situation.
When I was young we had the Green Cross Code. Government invested in pedestrian education. Now, pedestrians can do whatever the hell they like and it’s the driver’s fault. I frequently see young men saunter across the road in front of cars (causing them to hit the brakes) because they think it makes them look “hard”. Er no. When a ton of metal hits you, you will not look cool or hard.
I don’t believe the answer to pedestrian safety is to drop speed limits. The correct solution is to educate pedestrians and drivers. We’ve probably all seen the advert on TV with the little girl who gets run over. The whole emphasis is on the car driver being in the wrong. In actual fact, the girl should not have been in the road in the first place.
Do you also remember that other classic advert on stopping distances, where the car is skidding for an enormous distance with locked wheels? I couldn’t get my car to skid for that distance at that speed even if I had bald tyres and had covered the road in oil! And, is it not a requirement of the driving test that you can stop a car without locking the wheels? That means every person on the road today _should_ be able to stop a car without skidding in a much shorter distance. In fact, the stopping distances in the Highway Code are based on drum brake cars in the sixties. My Fiat with five pot Brembos, discs all round and ABS can stop in a fraction of those distances. Just another example of how government educational money is spent on villifying the driver whilst confusing the facts.
Properly trained drivers look out for potential dangers and vulnerable road users, so I revert to my point on the need for regular re-testing of all drivers, but pedestrians must also take responsibility for their own actions.
Again, there are precious few cycle lanes, and often these are shared with buses. I have been knocked off my bike by a bus and I have a friend who experienced the same. A couple of weeks ago on Top Gear, Richard Hammond showed how the bus drivers just don’t look for cyclists even though they share the priority lane with them.