on the road · thursday, june 23. road transport over the last three decades has been influenced...

Who are we, and what do we do? To join or donate to the ABD, visit www.abd.org.ukThe ABD campaign for: Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues

Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues

P2: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP4: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP6: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP7: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P8: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP9: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP11: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP12: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP13: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxP14: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx


Sorry mate, I didn’t see you . . . how many times have you heard those words when a driver has pulled out in front of another road user?

In most cases, the driver will have looked, but been fooled into thinking the road was clear, because of the way our eyes and brains see things when we move our heads.

The ABD is seeking to address the problem, by launching a safety campaign to educate road users on the dangers of ‘Saccadic Masking’ - limitations in a driver’s vision, which can effectively create blindspots.

As we move our heads from side-to-side at a junction, our eyes send snapshots to our brain at intervals – much like a video camera records different frames.

The brain then merges the snapshots into what we think is a continuous image – but that is actually an illusion, because there will be blindspots.

And if another road user – often a smaller object such as a motorbike or cyclist – falls within one of these blindspots, they will not be seen. This is known as Saccadic Masking.

The faster drivers move their heads at junctions, the more likely they are to create significant blindspots.

The ABD is putting forward a series of recommendations to the Department for Transport, in an effort to tackle the issue. They include:l Teaching schoolchildren how to cross

the road, especially the need to keep their head still for at least half a second at the end of each sweep to left and rightl Educating young cyclists how to look in

a similar way, especially at junctionsl Encouraging driving instructors to teach

about the dangers of saccadic masking and blindspots, and include it in the theory test

Putting safety first

AGM time isjust aroundthe corner

P2: ABD in the news – media coverage round-upP4: Funding of speed cameras needs scrutinyP6: Working parties, quangos and acronyms!P7: Social media spreading the ABD message P8: Beware a case of mistaken identityP9: Is it greener to travel by bus, or car?P11: Trans-Pennine tunnel plans revealedP12: Pothole problems – repair bills are risingP13: National Infrastructure Conference reportP14: Road sign restrictions are ‘a disgrace’

l Running information campaign for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers.l Including advice on how to look

properly in driver improvement courses, when offered instead of fixed penalties for careless driving.

The ABD says: “If the following recommendations were implemented, accident numbers and the percentage with ‘failed to look properly’ as a contributory factor should fall over time.”

The most common contributory factor to recorded injury accidents has consistently been a driver or rider’s failure to look properly. According to most recent DfT figures, this was a factor in 46% of accidents. A further 9% resulted from a pedestrian’s failure to look properly.

This means more than half of all injury accidents are due to failures of observation - so any action that could address the fundamental causes of this problem could reduce accident numbers significantly.l Watch our video on Saccadic Masking on

Youtube, by searching for ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’


With the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game

for a hike in fuel tax!That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning

public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’.

The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A knee-jerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage!

The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media.

It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective?

“The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased.

“The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed.

“Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.”

FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve

Fair deal for dieseldrivers is demanded

The British people took the momentous decision to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23.

Road transport over the last three decades has been influenced (some would say dictated) by EU policymaking which the ABD feels has seen road transport as the poor relation in the transport ‘hierarchy’.

While the UK is now in uncharted territory, and the process under way to find a new Prime Minister after David Cameron’s resignation, the ABD says it will be keeping a keen eye on the parliamentary process to see what changes will ensue.

Advice to members is to watch out for and beware use of “active travel plans” and object to their introduction in their areas.

We shall be taking a strong stance on this issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers.

The Alliance of British Drivers is a non-party political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue.

But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave.

(See P4-5 for more details).

Beware of& object tothe “activetravel plan”

Inside our summer 2016 issue:P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlinesP4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU surveyP6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-roundP7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hypeP8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea?P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers CommitteeP11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom AssociationP12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall?P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport FocusP14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in briefP15: Your views - ABD members have their say

Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK

ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units.

“A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.”

FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively?

“Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.”

Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be

held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum,

Gaydon, starting at 10.30am

The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers

Issue 118 Spring 2016


It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s

Bills making their way through parliament.

But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn.

While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention.

ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve round-table discussions on legislative implications.

“The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.”

In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs.

Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.”

The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own

Double delight - but notime to be complacent

MP Scott Mannhad been promoting

the Bill

Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections:

1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals.

2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities.

3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse.

The objectionsmade by ABD

Inside our spring 2016 issue:P2: P3:P4:P5: P6:P8:P11:P14:P15:P16:

Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits

On The Road

speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say.

The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage.

Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say.

Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace.

“This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.”

On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration

4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds.

5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed.

6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys.

7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense.

Issue 119 Summer 2016















the Bill








On The Road











Issue 120 Autumn 2016













































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road











Inside our autumn 2016 issue:

A still image from the video ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’, available on Youtube

Phil Carey is one of the speakers at this

year’s annual general meeting, in Gaydon

What are you doing on Saturday, October 15? We’d love to see you at our annual general meeting, being held at the British Motor Museum in Gaydon, Warwickshire.

In addition to the formal business of re-electing officials, delivering reports and presenting the accounts, we have a wide variety of expert speakers on the programme.

They include:

Jason Evans and Graham Foster of Disabled Motoring UK, who will be looking at problems for drivers with disabilities, and Phil Cleary from Transport Focus – the Government group set up to advise Highways England.

ABD London member Roger Lawson will be explaining his speed awareness course campaign, and director Ian Taylor will look at some of the campaigns we have been involved with over the past 12 months.

And we are hoping for a good turnout . . . and plenty of challenging questions from the floor! It is all due to start at 10.30am, and the venue is just five minutes from junction 12 of the M40.

Our AGM is a chance to meet other like-minded ABD members for some lively discussion – and also includes free entry to the museum.

We will be breaking at 12.30pm for lunch, and there’s a café in the museum complex.
















l Running information campaigns for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers.l Including advice on how to look


















































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:






If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road traffic accident, and your vehicle

suffers significant damage, your insurer will probably offer a ‘courtesy vehicle’ while yours is under repair.

That sounds all well and good, but the ABD is warning drivers to check the small print carefully.

Because these days the vehicle is more typically supplied to you on what is described in law as a ‘credit hire’ basis – and with a hefty price tag potentially attached.

"So what?" you say. Well, in signing for possession of that vehicle, you are authorising the provider to charge that vehicle against any outstanding claim for the accident in which you were involved.

And this could be at a daily rate which is typically over £300. The total credit hire costs will be assigned on a blame-apportionment basis once liability has been agreed between the insurers of those involved in the accident.

ABD chairman Brian Gregory says: “I am pretty peeved about this whole accident management services scenario.

“For £300 per day, it is possible to hire a piece of exotica such as a Bentley Continental GT Coupé rather than some humdrum cabriolet, coupé, hatchback, saloon, SUV, or indeed van originating from one of the mainstream vehicle manufacturers.

“A high street provider could rent you a vehicle comparable to your accident-damaged one at one-tenth of the credit-hire rate; so where is the rest of the credit hire cost going?

“Well, into the pockets of the insurance company or third party credit hire vehicle provider, presumably . . .

“If non-availability of parts delays the commencement of repairs on your vehicle; a three week credit hire spell could easily result - leading to a consequent £5,000-plus credit hire cost overhead being added to the total repair bill.”

Mr Gregory has contacted Steve Baker MP, who established and chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Economics, Money and Banking, urging him to investigate.

Another ABD member has also referred this whole sector to BBC’s Watchdog programme as worthy of investigation.

“It is high time that the road traffic accident management sector was subject to in-depth official investigation, and subsequent regulation to curb the abuses currently occurring within it,” Mr Gregory said.

Based on 2014 statistics for reported

Call for official investigation into roadtraffic accident management sector

accidents alone - around 150,000 in that year - if provision of replacement vehicles on a credit hire basis adds even £1,000 to the cost of an average insurance claim, that would be £150 million added annually to total insurance claim costs; or roughly £5 per car insurance policy.

Brian Gregory adds: “Apparently the accident management services sector is currently totally unregulated; with both the Financial Conduct Authority and the government's Claims Management Regulator indicating that it is outside either of their remits.

“When car insurers on the one hand prattle on about the rising cost of accident remediation; while on the other they are complicit in the provision of vehicles at 10 times the daily rate that a high-street provider could furnish them, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

“The blatant profiteering, by both respected insurers and third-party accident management companies alike which appears to be going on in this sector, could easily be constrained by applying a mandatory limit to

The ABD is calling on the post-Brexit government to stop its ‘nonsensical’ war on the car . . . and start tackling the real transport problems in the UK.

Spokesman Nigel Humphreys said: “Time and again we hear campaigners blaming cars for all the world's ills, yet car emissions have never been lower.

“We should scrap HS2 and spend the £60 billion or more on the roads we need.”

Read more of Nigel’s comments, including doubts over many of the latest claims expressed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on Page 9.

Issue 121 Winter 2017

Inside our winter 2017 issue:

Check the small print when claiming on your car insurance

Stop car wars

the credit-hire charges they are permitted to levy.

“A fixed multiple cap could be applied to credit hire charges; at, say, twice the average of a basket of the daily hire rates of the Top 5 high-street hire-car providers for a comparable model to the replacement vehicle being offered.”

Peeved - ABD's Brian Gregory

Don't take usback in time

AGM – a chanceto have your say

Politically-motivated environmental extremists who are behind the declaration of a ‘climate emergency’ will never be

satisfied – even if we return to the Stone Age.That’s the view of the ABD, in response to the news that

two UK cities have now declared car-free days.“No-one dies from modern levels of air pollution in the UK

– there are no death certificates or coroners’ reports citing air pollution as a cause of death,” the ABD says.

“Since 1970, according to Defra, NOx emissions have been reduced by 72% and particulates by 79%. If there ever was an air pollution ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’ it was in the middle of the 20th century and certainly not in the 21st century.

“In the ABD’s view, claims to the contrary are nothing more than a taxation and restrictions opportunity for the political class, backed by dishonest attacks on transport and the economy by politically motivated environmental extremists who will never be satisfied even if we return to the Stone Age.”

The ability to continue driving into our towns and cities is a common theme through this issue.

ABD member Peter Horton has put pen to paper to challenge plans to scrap the proposed dual carriageway scheme around York.

l See Pages 5 and 13


Have you seen ABD chairman Ian Taylor giving evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee?

He was invited to join a debate in Westminster about pavement parking – with footage being broadcast online.

Ian said: “It was a daunting challenge, being a rep from a small group, up against strident organisations like Living Streets and local authorities eyeing the prospect of levying fines against drivers.

“I needn’t have worried, though. Questions

ABD represented at the House of Commons

The ABD is returning to the British Motor Museum at Gaydon in Warwickshire for its annual general meeting this year.

Save the date: It’s on Saturday October 12th, starting at 10.45am. Members will receive a notice nearer the time.

Director Brian Macdowall says: “It’s your chance to comment and offer support on our activities – there have been several important changes over the last year, designed to improve our effectiveness.

“Your help and support is vital for our campaigning success, so please come along and join in!"

were quite probing but good natured – I’ve had far worse treatment from BBC radio presenters!”

Find out more – and how you can watch the video footage of Ian giving evidence, on pages 8 and 9.

Ian Taylor took part in a debate at Westminster




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




abd.org.uk

Bristol is again considering a workplace parking levy. We will be joining the TPA on an action day – possibly two – involving street stall/leafleting.

Letter C is for ...C is for ... CONFRONTATION

At a TaxPayers’ Alliance panel discussion on HS2, Ian Taylor found himself in a direct public confrontation with Shaun Bailey, the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. Shaun is against HS2 but when challenged over our suggestion for roads to get a lion’s share of any money saved, he came out and said a big ‘no’ – he is for prioritising railways. More about this on page 11.

C is for ... COLLABORATIONLater that same evening (in the pub!) Ian was in

conversation with the TPA’s National Grassroots man, Harry Fone. The TPA are about to launch campaigns against workplace parking charges, now being considered by a number of councils. We would like to stop these too but lack sufficient local organisation ‘on the ground’ to do much, so it is pleasing that the TPA have invited us to join forces.

C is for ... CAMPAIGNINGBristol is again considering a workplace parking

levy. We will be joining the TPA on an action day – possibly two – involving street stall/leafleting, an open letter to council and media activity, on September 13 and/or 14. If you are from Bristol, Bath, Somerset or Wiltshire, this could affect you. Please come and join in. More details will be emailed nearer the dates, or will be available from Ian Taylor.

C is for ... COUNCILLORWe reported in the last issue that Bob Bull had

been elected to a council seat in Bristol. He has in fact taken a seat on Portishead Town Council.

COMMITMENT BY THE ABD TO WORKING ON YOUR BEHALF

The results of the annual Motorway Services User Survey, by Transport Focus, were presented at Welcome Break South Mimms Service Area on the northern half of the M25.

The survey showed overall satisfaction remaining high at 90%, however fewer visitors described themselves as ‘very satisfied’ compared to last year. Dissatisfaction remained low at 3%.

Disabled visitors reported 87% satisfaction, while professional drivers were the least satisfied group at 87%. Across individual operators the range was from 86% to 98% satisfaction.

Westmoreland achieved the highest score for an operator, while Norton Canes was the highest rated site for the second year running. Thurrock was the most improved - 68% to 93%. Other sites with notable improvements were Heston West, Heston East, Oxford and Rownhams South.

When it came to suggested areas for improvement, they included expanding foot to eat-in range, toilet cleanliness and maintenance, and general pricing of goods and fuel.

The survey interviewed 11,609 as they left. Trunk road services raised concern – there needed to be a better definition of what they are and what they might be expected to provide – for example Chobham TRSA (not the MSA) gives only 35 minutes free parking.

It was pointed out that railway stations (the main ones at least) are becoming more like motorway service areas or even airports in terms of facilities available, so there is room for cross-learning.

Champion of theservices revealed

Welcome Break South Mimms Service Area

By Ian Taylor

abd.org.uk

The ABD has long called for ‘evidence-based’ road safety policies, saying the evidence on 20mph schemes should not be ignored




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




Joining forces againstsenseless speed limitThe ABD has launched

a specific website against the continued

expansion of 20mph limits – www.20ssenseless.org

The ‘20s Senseless’ campaign aims to support local campaigns against the misuse of 20mph zones, gain media exposure, and raise public awareness against 20’s limits, often imposed for ideological, rather than road safety reasons.

The reason for doing this, the ABD says, is that there is much misinformation being spread by campaigners for such speed limits.

What has been happening, it says, is that anti-car activists encouraged by such organisations as 20s Plenty are now wasting millions of pounds nationwide which would be better spent on other road safety measures – such as road engineering and education of younger drivers.

The Department for Transport published the most authoritative study to date on the impact of wide-area signed-only 20mph speed limits last year. It showed that there is no road safety benefit whatsoever from such schemes. In addition they have negligible impact on modal shift or on traffic speeds.

This was the long-awaited evidence that enormous amounts of money are being wasted on implementing 20mph schemes which could have been spent instead on more effective road safety measures.

In London alone, it is estimated that tens of millions of pounds have been spent on 20mph signed-only schemes to no effect and nationwide it must run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

The ABD has long called for ‘evidence-based’ road safety policies, saying the evidence on 20mph schemes should not be ignored.

The DfT report can be read at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-mph-speed-limits-on-roads . Key paragraphs include:l “The evidence available to

date shows no significant change in the short term in collisions and casualties, in the majority of the case studies (including the aggregated set of residential case studies).”l “Journey speed analysis

shows that the median speed has

fallen by 0.7mph in residential areas and 0.9mph in city centre areas.”

The ABD is not opposed to the use of 20mph speed limits where it might be of benefit or where compliance will be high.

But the organisation’s view is that it is not the solution to all road safety problems and simply sticking up signs is a waste of money.

“The simplistic solutions proposed by advocates of wide area signed-only 20mph schemes do not work to reduce the Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) on our roads to any significant extent,” the ABD says.

“Money is being wasted on them that could be better used to reduce KSIs in other ways.”

l Get involved in the campaign see www.20ssenseless.org

‘20s Senseless’ aims to support local campaigns against the misuse of zones

abd.org.uk

The report recommendations included more information about the work through a variety of channels including roadside signage, news media, mapping tools and apps




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars



Peeved - ABD's Brian GregoryA new report has arrived from Transport Focus into the ongoing work to turn the M4 into a smart

motorway.The key findings of this report, produced in

conjunction with Highways England, are that evidence shows smart motorways to be as safe as traditional motorways, but drivers are not convinced and want to ‘feel safe’. It also highlights a need for better understanding of how to use smart motorways.

Almost three in five drivers interviewed were satisfied with their most recent use of the M4, with one in five very satisfied.

The report recommendations included more information about the work through a variety of channels including roadside signage, news media, mapping tools and apps as well as social media, information at service areas, and, for businesses, direct contact with Highways England.

There was particular interest shown in receiving information via satnav systems and from the likes of Google Maps and Waze.

It was felt that providing more details about the operation of smart motorways – and on the M4 in particular – may help overcome key issues, along with statistics that demonstrate the safety of smart motorways already in operation.

On that last point, the ABD has questioned Highways England via Transport Focus on how they collected those statistics and comparisons with a shrinking amount of traditional motorways. At the time of writing, their detailed reply is awaited.

Is this a smart idea?Rack and ruin – it's time to take back our roads

Brian Gregory

I recently had the misfortune to attend a Speed Awareness Course run by Drivesafe, an offshoot of the AA.

Some of the information given was useful, such as explaining the default rules governing which speed limits apply to different roads and classes of vehicles.

However, I was concerned that a number of statements were made that were factually incorrect.

For example, it was said that the sale of new diesel cars would be banned from some time next year, which is certainly untrue.

It was also stated that the guidance to cyclists had recently been changed to recommend riding two abreast.

However, Rule 66 of the Highway Code clearly states, as it has done for some years: “You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”

Whatever you may think of these courses, surely it is incumbent on those organising them to ensure that all information provided is accurate and will not mislead participants.

Peter Edwardson

Letter to the editor – course for concern

The Transport Select Committee is calling for a front-loaded, five-year funding settlement to tackle what it describes as the ‘extreme state of disrepair of the English local road network’.

A lack of funding certainty has caused many councils to take short-term, reactive decisions on road maintenance, ‘which is less effective than proactive maintenance and undermines local economic performance,’ MPs said.

Whilst we welcome the call - which is long overdue - the ABD feels it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

We urge all readers to download new ABD research from our founder Brian Gregory, who has produced a new updated version ‘Road Investment and Road User Taxation: The Truth’

In an easy to read format it gives the truth that, whatever way you measure spending on roads, the taxpayer has been badly short changed and the economy has suffered.

It provides an excellent reference work and a useful counter to MPs and others who say we can’t build our way out of congestion.

As Brian himself says: “It doesn’t help if you’ve never actually tried.”

The document can be downloaded at the website www.abd.org.uk/category/taxation/

abd.org.uk

The balance of all of the many factors that influence life expectancy are strongly positive in favour of increased longevity – people are living years longer




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




Climate alarmism hasreached new heightsClimate alarmism,

with its doomsday message, generated

a 400,000 signature petition, and led the government to declare a ‘Climate Emergency’.

Now, it has also moved two UK cities to declare car-free days.

Local authorities, like sheep, have jumped on the bandwagon. Roads around Leeds will be closed in Otley, Headingley and Hunslet on Sunday, September 22 this year, to celebrate World Car Free Day.

The council’s portfolio holder for planning and transport, Councillor Lisa Mulherin, made the announcement during a speech at an event entitled ‘The Big Leeds Climate Conversation’.

“We want to become a carbon neutral council, but we want to ask the biggest nine carbon emitters in the city to do the same.

“Every organisation has a part to play, that is why we are announcing a new £150,000 funding competition to help reduce car journeys from our roads.

“Every weekday morning it is estimated that 60,000 people drive into Leeds alone, causing congestion, worsening air pollution and damaging health.

“Starting with three in September on car free days and two in our inner cities – there will be a rolling programme going into next year.”

The exact identities of the closed roads has not been

revealed at time of going to press.

But Birmingham will close one of its major arteries, the Aston Expressway, on Sunday 22 September; it will shut for six hours to create a park on the road as its contribution to so called car free day.

The cost of the TRO to allow this jamboree hasn’t been mentioned.

Even 10 years ago this would have seemed far-fetched, but the stridency of campaigners, like Client Earth, promoting junk science, and a national media - which is woefully ill informed on the scientific debate, has allowed the equivalent of an anarchist state to prevail, with drivers again being the fantasists’ main target.

The truth about air quality is very different.

No-one dies from modern levels of air pollution in the UK – there are no death certificates or coroners’ reports citing air pollution as a cause of death.

The balance of all of the many factors that influence life expectancy are strongly positive in favour of increased longevity – people are living years longer, not days, weeks or months shorter.

There are no Particulate or Nitrogen dioxide syndromes and the NHS cannot attribute cardiovascular or respiratory problems in patients, which have multiple potential causes, to PM2.5 or NOx.

Instead, the false health scare is created by mathematical models derived from extremely unreliable ‘ecological’ epidemiology studies where actual exposure of individuals to PM2.5 or NOx is NOT measured. Statistics isn’t science and correlation isn’t causation.

The same low-grade epidemiology produces a spurious 99% correlation with divorce rates and margarine consumption in Maine!

The last significant unhealthy smog conditions in the UK, caused by a weather-related temperature inversion and Sulphur dioxide were in London in 1962. The 1952 London smog resulted in the 1956 Clean Air Act.

Since 1970, according to DEFRA, NOx emissions have been reduced by 72% and Particulates by 79%. If there ever was an air pollution ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’ it was in the middle of the 20th century and certainly not in the 21st century.

In the ABD’s view, claims to the contrary are nothing more than a taxation and restrictions opportunity for the political class, backed by dishonest attacks on transport and the economy by politically motivated environmental extremists who will never be satisfied even if we return to the Stone Age.

One of the major arteries into Birmingham is to close

abd.org.uk




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




Bottom of priorities listThe ABD has long been

a member of PACTS, the Parliamentary

Advisory Council on Transport Safety. I attended the latest working parties meeting on June 24.

The morning session focussed on ‘promoting safer, sustainable and active travel’.

Most of the speakers were from Transport for London, explaining the latest research and developments in the capital. Much of this concerned resolving conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and motor vehicles.

While some of the measures introduced seem sensible, there is no getting away from the fact that drivers are now at the bottom of the priority list.

Apparently, almost 40% of London's roads now have a 20mph speed limit, mostly in the central area, and TfL wants to get outer London boroughs to increase their use of 20 limits.

One presenter claimed that 'inappropriate speed' is a factor in 37% of fatal and serious accidents in London, but where this figure came from was not stated. There are now some 900 speed cameras in the city.

Heather Ward suggested that people 'like' 20mph limits and that they 'do no harm'. Really?! Edinburgh is carrying out a study into the supposed health and casualty benefits of 20 limits - the study is due to be published in 2021.

Former LibDem MP Lembit Opik of Motorcyclists Action Group

By Malcolm Heymer

asked why 'failed' 20mph limits such as those in Portsmouth and Bath were not being removed. The rather weak response was that it would be too expensive!

Perhaps the most interesting topic concerned new forms of motorised personal vehicles such as electric scooters, electric bikes, hover boards etc, and how these should be dealt with.

Legislation will need to catch up with such developments and where they can and can't be used or parked. The potential for conflict with other road users, either on carriageways or footways, is obvious.

In the afternoon session of the Road Environment Working Party, there was an update on 20mph speed limits in Scotland and Wales. As reported recently in Local Transport Today, the Scottish Parliament has rejected a change in the default urban limit from 30 to 20mph.

Wales is looking into the feasibility of a blanket 20mph limit but has not; contrary to the impression 20’s Plenty for Us like to give, already made that decision!

The ongoing review of the STATS19 police accident report

form is attempting to reduce the current 70+ contributory factors to around 30. Some of the current ones have never actually been used. There will be a consultation on the resulting slimmed-down list, hopefully in 2020.

On rural road safety, I said the ABD does not want to see reduced speed limits as the default solution. I pointed out that the accident problem with many single-carriageway rural A-roads is that they are operating above capacity, and gave the example of the A47 through Norfolk.

Drivers may have to wait several minutes to join or cross at at-grade junctions, and impatience can lead to rash decisions.

Apparently Highways England is not keen on the use of speed cameras on its roads, except for enforcing variable speed limits on motorways. They don't like to be seen penalising their customers!

When the meeting ended, we were asked to submit agenda topics for future. I have suggested that we would like to see saccadic masking discussed.

Highways England is not keenon rural speed cameras

Conflicts exist between motorists and cyclists

Apparently Highways England is not keen on the use of speed cameras on its roads, except for enforcing variable speed limits on motorways.

abd.org.uk




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




A win for road safety and the economy tooAnother ABD prediction has come true…

A Department for Transport report shows that allowing HGVs over 7.5

tonnes to travel 10mph faster has saved business millions of pounds a year - and may have improved road safety.

Bringing them closer to the speed of other traffic, has contributed to an increase of 1.5mph in average speeds on single carriageway roads saved hauliers 650,000 driving hours and more than £10 million a year in running costs.

The change, which came into force in 2015, allows lorries to travel at up to 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageway roads in England and Wales.

It means they are travelling at similar speeds to other vehicles, with the aim of improving road safety

Roads minister Michael Ellis said: “Increasing the speed limit for lorries has helped companies save time and money . . . potentially improving road safety by reducing the risks some drivers take when overtaking slow-moving vehicles.”

ABD spokesman Paul Biggs said: "The ABD welcomed the speed limit increase for HGVs in 2015 and the positive results are in line with our expectations.

“The ABD had meetings with civil servants during 2013/14 on this issue.

“This is an important reminder of the fact that setting appropriate speed limits improves safety and helps the economy.

"Groups campaigning for lower speed limits have been proved wrong again.”

ABD spokesman Paul Biggs

The change, which came into force in 2015, allows lorries to travel at up to 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageway roads in England and Wales

Gearing up againstworkplace chargingWorkplace parking has reared its ugly head

again with several councils, including Bristol (again!) Oxford, Cambridge, Leeds and maybe Leicester amongst others, promoting the idea of workplace charges to ease congestion.

Following our panel discussion at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we’re pleased to report the TPA are formulating battle plans to counter this money grabbing exercise.

They want us there with them on this, so everyone please be prepared to travel and meet up with them on some action days, usually street stalls, leafleting in streets, and local publicity or interviews. We’ll keep you informed.

Pothole problemsevery six minutesLocal authorities in the West Midlands

receive a complaint to fix a pothole every six minutes, according to new Freedom of Information figures gathered by the Federation of Small Businesses.

In total, more than £61 million has been spent fixing damaged roads and holes in the region over 2018/19, down £4 million from the previous year.

Just under £175,000 has been paid out in compensation to claimants in the region that had their vehicles damaged last year. The figures revealed that just 31% of claims for vehicle damage were successful across the West Midlands, with the average pay out per claim equating to £218.

In brief. . .

l WATCH IAN TAYLOR’S APPEARANCE AT THE COMMITTEE HERE:




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




Ian Taylor faced questions by the House of Commons Select Committee

Roads and pavements are so vastly different that we do not think that one size does fit all. It should be largely up to local decision, depending on the road and the situation.

Chairman gives evidenceto panel at Westminster

ABD chairman Ian Taylor put in a fighting performance after accepting an invitation to appear before

the House of Commons Transport Select Committee.

Chaired by Lilian Greenwood, the first debate on pavement parking also heard evidence from Dr Rachel Lee of Living Streets, and Chris Theobald from Guide Dogs.

Ian said: “It was a daunting challenge, being a rep from a small group, up against strident organisations like Living Streets and local authorities eyeing the prospect of levying fines against drivers.

“Questions were quite probing but good natured – I’ve had far worse treatment from BBC radio presenters!

“We were helped by my being able to present views as evidence-based: practical examples of pavement parking that works and our suggestion of a 1.2 metre clear footway having been used in Havering.

“There was dispute that that was enough from Guide Dogs and Living Streets, they wanted 1.5 or 2 metres - some pavements are narrower than that!”

The second panel comprised of council people. Their line was harder, being committed to discouraging car use.

Ian said: “It was lot of hard work but, once again, the ABD has promoted the voice of drivers.

“I urged the committee not to stray over the line that separates traffic management from social engineering. The impression I got, even if they didn’t come out and say it, is that their ultimate objective is to plan out car parking, both off and on street.

“When I suggested a statutory duty on councils for to provide parking parking provision, I don’t think they liked that either. Whatever happens, councils will be expected to self-fund from fees and penalties.

“That is why some are not keen to be handed responsibility – though there was acceptance all round that local authorities will have to be the enforcing authority.

“Having argued against ‘one size fits all’ law because roads and pavements vary so much, it is likely that pavement parking will be decriminalised as result –

relieving councils of necessity for expensive Traffic Regulation Orders.”

Here is an abridged summary of the main questions posed to Ian by the panel, and his answers:

Q: There is no doubt that we have received hundreds of pieces of evidence - more than for any other recent inquiry, by a long way. Of course, the reason for holding the inquiry is to do something about it. Do you think that the general public and motorists generally understand the potential impact they are having when they park on the pavement?

A: Most reasonable people do. Let’s face it: I am a motorist, but the minute I park my car, I become a pedestrian, using the footpath as well. I do not want people blocking me from it. Having said that, we have mentioned whether it should be presumed forbidden except where you are told that you can, or whether it should be the other way round. We do not like the idea of blanket or near-blanket bans. It is the principle of one size fits all. Roads and pavements are so vastly different that we do not think that one size does fit all. It should be largely up to local decision, depending on the road and the situation. Therefore, we like the present system, whereby you can do it unless there is something or someone there to tell you that you cannot. It should be made clearer where you cannot, certainly. When people selfishly ignore that, there is a good case for making it easier for action to be taken against them. If you imposed a blanket ban, you might need seriously to consider exceptions. The emergency services are obviously the first that come to mind. That is why we recommend that, as long as no obstruction is caused, it should be allowed, where it can be allowed responsibly. We have our own ideas on that. I consulted one of my members, who is a retired highways engineer. He said that in one London borough where the law is a bit the other way - Havering, actually - they tried forcing people always to leave a minimum limit of 1.2 metres. He said that seems to work. There seems to be a little bit of evidence in favour of that. That is therefore what we would recommend.

Pavement parking was the focus of the debate held in Westminster

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/12cd37f9-6947-4923-bc4b-8c40ac848d82




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




Hemel Hempstead is designed for pavement parking in the New Town residential areas. Pavements are deliberately wide and are marked with parking bays fully on the pavement.

Q: At the moment, motorists make a judgment about what they think is a reasonable gap, I guess. Would that be fair?

A: They may need some guidelines

Q: An area I am particularly interested in, is the extent to which it is local people knowingly doing it, because it is what people do, and the extent to which it is people from outside the area, who are just confused. What is your sense of that?

A: It can happen both ways. I agree that most public concern probably arises from things like parking around schools. They have the added protection of the zig-zags. In many cases, it may be a problem only at the times when schools come in and out. I hope that would take care of it. Regarding other obstructions, I think sometimes we get a bit too concerned about exactly where all the wheels are, rather than whether or not an obstruction is being caused. People parking is not the only thing. All sorts of things obstruct pavements, be they lampposts, signposts, bus stops or even overgrown hedges - you name it. All sorts of things do it, and people have to contend with them as well. Wheelie-bins were mentioned just now. I have always thought that there is a bit of an irony, in that we are told to put out our wheelie-bins by councils, which also put a lot of those other things on the pavements, and they might be the same authorities that are enforcing bans on pavement parking. I do not want you to get the wrong impression. I definitely do not approve of people who cause obstruction, whether it be in the highway or on the pavement. The pavement is a highway, too, don’t forget. It is just a matter of proportionality all round. In that respect, some of the London boroughs that have this power specifically provide a certain amount of pavement parking - marked-out parking. It seems to work. In fact, a few other places do it, too. I have seen pictures from Bristol. Actually, a member wrote to me about it. I think he mentioned Hemel Hempstead, or somewhere like that. Anyway, it happens. I personally have seen it quite a lot in my travels all around Europe. I have seen it in Latvia, in Düsseldorf, in Frankfurt and in a little place in southern Germany called Passau. I am sure that there are many other places where, as long as the pavements are wide enough, the local authorities actually mark out parking bays. They are half in the road and half on the pavement. I therefore regard it as a proven system. It works. The motorists are happy. The pedestrians are happy. It is win-win.

Q: Could each of you give me a definition of what you believe constitutes obstructive pavement parking?

A: It is where people using the pavement risk getting wedged in or are forced into the road. That is obstruction, and I am as much against that as anyone here. If it can be done in the right circumstances, responsibly, without causing obstruction, let it be. The big question is whether the presumption should be that you can do it unless you are told not to, or vice versa. A lot of the enforcement of that comes down to how individual councils, which, I presume, would be the enforcement authority in most cases, would carry it out. I know that a lot of people who are drivers fear that. To put it bluntly, they do not trust their council not just to impose a ban, to send out their wardens on a ticketing spree and to penalise them right, left and sideways. I would not go so far as to say that most councils would do that, but it is a perception. Therefore, it might be best to do it the other way round. Councils have the power to have traffic orders and impose pavement parking bans locally, where they think it necessary, as it is. I would have no objection to it being made a bit simpler for them to do that, in the right circumstances.

Q: Do you think there are solutions to addressing the problem other than a ban?

A: Roads not unnecessarily narrowed, very often in combination with wider pavements, which almost begs someone to park partly on them, but it does mean there is room there. I am aware that there are a lot of older roads that are narrow and have narrow pavements where you cannot have parking of any sort, but there are others where the road is narrow enough not to want parking on the street but the pavements are wide enough for maybe half a little vehicle. It is a matter of fitting the rules to the situation rather than one size fits all. I am afraid I go back to that again.

Former ABD Herts co-ordinator Robert Bolt correctly pointed out where parking partly on the pavement is in order to leave the roadway wide enough for traffic to get through without obstruction or delay - something that seems to be overlooked by those agitating for a ban.

Rob said: “The 'New Town' of Hemel Hempstead is designed for pavement parking in the New Town residential areas. Pavements are deliberately wide and are marked with parking bays fully on the pavement.

“As a result there is hardly any parking on the roads in New Town residential areas. In contrast, where I live, built in the 1990s, the streets and pavements are narrow, with high housing density.”

ABD's Ian Taylor

When parking causes no obstruction,what is the problem?

Obstructions to the highway shouldalways be avoided

A daunting challenge – Ian Taylor seated far right during the debate

abd.org.uk

In the ABD’s view, anyone who has driven along this road knows that the congestion (and pollution) is directly caused by the change from a dual to a single carriageway




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




More ‘hot air’ threatens to delay a vital scheme Highways England has tried to counter

arguments that additional carbon dioxide emissions from its planned

Stonehenge tunnel will increase congestion on part of the route as a result of additional induced traffic.

A report from the National Audit Office has disclosed that Highways England expects the controversial 3.3km tunnel for the A303 to increase carbon dioxide emissions by two million tonnes over 60 years, providing a negative benefit of £86 million.

The NAO report also states that the scheme will result in net improvements in nitrogen emissions and particulates, albeit with an air quality benefit costed at only £300,000.

The NAO report also discloses that the total journey time benefits of the scheme over 60 years are £370 million, a figure that is dwarfed by its ‘inherently uncertain’ cultural heritage benefits of £955 million.

Highways England’s Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report for the scheme, states: “Annual average daily traffic flows on the scheme in 2041 are predicted to be 45,500 vehicles, which is almost 20,000 more vehicles than in 2017 and 13,000 more vehicles than without the scheme.”

In the ABD’s view, anyone who has driven along this road knows that the congestion (and pollution) is directly caused by the change from a dual to a single carriageway between the village of Winterbourne Stoke, the Longbarrow and Countess roundabouts.

This scheme will address those pinch points improving traffic flow considerably.

The A303, long labelled ‘the longest footpath to the south west’ will attract more housing jobs and investment because journey times will become more reliable.

Putting monetary values on carbon dioxide and exhaust emissions totally distorts cost benefit analysis, threatening to kill off large infrastructure projects because of alleged harm of increasing emissions.

So-called environmentalists have (in an argument, already lasting several years) forced Highways England to design a tunnel past the site to satisfy their demands the landscape looks untouched since ancient times!

The entire scheme is currently costing anything between £1.6 and 2.4 billion.

"The likelihood, in the ABD’s view, is that the scheme will be shelved . . . and the congestion will worsen.

Will additional carbon dioxide emissions from its Highways England planned Stonehenge tunnel increase

congestion on the route?

abd.org.uk

As a follow up to the TPA’s Great British Transport Competition, a panel discussion was held to consider better ways to spend money than HS2.




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




HS2 is a bad idea – but doesa viable alternative exist?As a follow up to the

TPA’s Great British Transport Competition,

a panel discussion was held to consider better ways to spend money than HS2. Both Brian Macdowall and Ian Taylor attended for the ABD.

The panel consisted of Kelvin Hopkins, MP for Luton North, Michael Byng, an infrastructure and procurement specialist, and London’s Conservative mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey.

Everyone described HS2 as a b ad idea, but there were widely differing views on alternatives.

Those views were pretty extensively all about rail . . . Brian and Ian were the only ones at the meeting who were advocating roads.

Criticism was mounted (from transport consultants in the audience) of a number of the competition-winning entries: on grounds of flawed costing and business plans – and the fact that some of the projects are going ahead anyway. This includes part of A5 Expressway upgrading, Midland Main Line Electrification and the Lower Thames Crossing.

A lively debate ensued, albeit a very rail-centric one.

Ian Taylor said: “I got the microphone, stating around 88% of all journeys are made by road, before putting forward our suggestion for an 85% to 15% split of any saved money between road and rail.

“Potholes must be a priority, with a matching maintenance fund, to ensure our roads stay

at the high level of maintenance enjoyed by the Netherlands.

“I emphasised the ABD wasn’t anti-rail, but that all the talk about reducing car and road use was wrong. Road and rail were both essential with both operating seriously over-capacity.”

A telling response came from Shaun Bailey. He insisted more had to be spent on railways than roads, and getting people out of cars was helping cut congestion for those left on road.

Ian conceded those national percentages might be different for London – but he insisted on rail get priority everywhere.

However, he agreed the state of the roads, – potholes in particular, – urgently needed attention, but that should come out of road taxation, (not savings from scrapping HS2)

Interestingly, in the “before and after” conversation outside the meeting, Ian said he overheard him confirm that he wouldn’t extend Clean Air or Congestion Zones – but existing ones would stay.

Unfortunately, all the other candidates for mayor are proposing (from the ABD’s perspective) far worse.

Brian Macdowall obtained contact details of Shaun Bailey’s

policy advisor which he passed onto Roger Lawson, our London co-ordinator, with a view to influencing Mr Bailey himself.

Outside the main meeting, Ian had a conversation with the two traffic consultants, currently conducting a project about infrastructure in the south-east.

What did he think about the Lower Thames Crossing and roads to the ports? Ian told them, including some suggestions for upgrading the A2 and the Dover port approach.

“I found they are actively pushing for road pricing, saying it’s not only inevitable, but the only fair way to pay for roads, citing the equivalent of peak rail fares to manage demand.

“The inevitable bit came from the switch to electric rendering fuel tax null and void.

" I told them we needed the equivalent charge for electric power for transport; How? They asked.

“By bringing in a system of metering – not impossible since vehicle chargers use completely different plugs. The principle is important, as without it, road pricing is creeping up on us.”

l Responding to the rail v road discussion, Terry Hudson says: “I think a good point always to make about moving freight from road to rail, is how are you going to load/unload it? Even containers need large areas and extra rail tracks to load/unload - do we have that amount of spare land? It still has to get to its final destination by road, increased handling and risk of damage and time . . . all this has to be paid for.”

Is the answer to HS2 better roads?

abd.org.uk

The question was: Should the UK’s cities take a fresh look at road user charging to combat congestion and pollution?




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




The ABD was invited by Transportation Professional, the

magazine of the Chartered institution of Highways & Transportation, which claims 14,000 members, to participate in a debate on whether to look again at introducing road charging.


Silviya Barrett from the Centre for London English answered ‘yes’ to the question, claiming among her arguments that fairer charging and improved public transport would encourage those who are able to leave the car at home to switch to more sustainable and active modes of travel.

The ABD’s counter-response, from Ian Taylor, was an emphatic NO. His train of thought was based on one of Brian Gregory’s documents. Here are Ian’s comments from the article, reproduced with the magazine’s permission:

“Road pricing never achieves what it purports to deliver: altering road users’ travel choices.

“The vast majority of people cannot choose their journey times, routes or duration – this is often pre-determined by the need to reach destinations by certain times for employment.

“Congestion charges can only work by pricing users off the road, regressively removing the poorest first. Travel behaviour for the rest is not materially altered.

“In London, a combination of road charging and road space subtraction did cut traffic levels

Time for a fresh look at road user charging?

but without improving congestion levels or journey times.

“These measures reduce capacity, increase congestion and with it emissions. Councils have been financially pressured into planning charging schemes – an approach that failed in Edinburgh and Manchester once the public were mobilised.

“Little public consultation of the issues has occurred and the last time central Government seriously suggested widespread road pricing, the public delivered a thumbs down via a petition with numbers only surpassed come Brexit.

“Any infrastructure required to implement charging would cost a lot and would have to be recouped from road users.

“Some regard the tracking aspect as an infringement of privacy and civil liberties. It is unnecessary. Fuel duty is already a progressive form of road user taxation. The bigger the vehicle and the more it is used, the more is paid – and no avoidance.

"A similar tamper proof system must be instituted for electric vehicles.

“On pollution, vehicles will continue to become cleaner. Retrospective financial penalties on existing vehicles make no technical difference. Outside certain hotspots our air is clean.

“Congestion pollutes: tackle

that and keep traffic flowing. In congested cities the positive way forward is to provide good alternatives, but in a way that does not take away precious road space. Independent road travel must remain a choice in a free society.”

Transportation Professional cover

An article featuring the ABD


abd.org.uk

“May I make a plea for you to reconsider this matter and not to abandon essential infrastructure improvements.”




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars



Peeved - ABD's Brian GregoryWhen ABD member Peter Horton read that York City

Council’s new Green Party and Lib Dem coalition was considering scrapping plans to dual the city’s ring road, he put pen to paper to air his thoughts.

Peter, from Ripon, felt it was putting at risk the proposed government funding for the scheme, saying: “This foolish proposal cannot go unchallenged.” Here is what he wrote to the council’s leader, and executive member for transport:

“I was quite perturbed to read in the Yorkshire Post that the Green Party are thinking of scrapping plans to make the A1237 York ring road into a dual carriageway, according to Conservative members.

“Whilst I accept that you have serious concerns about climate change and air pollution, I do not think that the abandonment of an essential road scheme is the right way forward.

“I know, from personal experience, that the A1237 is often highly congested and crying out for some measures to ease the problem and I cannot see that you would improve the situation in any way by leaving things as they are.

“I also know that many campaigners take the line that new or improved roads only serve to generate more traffic, but I find this a false assumption as the perceived extra traffic is most likely taking advantage of a new and improved route to the benefit of other less adequate routes which may have been used previously to avoid congestion.

“Appreciating that you would advocate less car use in favour of public transport, walking and cycling, this is unlikely to happen on the York ring road which is part

Plans face the scrapheap

of the wider network across the county, and of course carries a large volume of commercial and heavy goods traffic for which there is no alternative.

“Therefore improvement of the road is essential and I ask you to consider this: Do you think that slow moving traffic queues in low gear, stopping and starting and negotiating busy junctions is less polluting than free flowing traffic streams on a dual carriageway? A moment's thought will give you the answer.

“May I make a plea for you to reconsider this matter and not to abandon essential infrastructure improvements.”

He did get a reply from the council, suggesting that the report was a bit of press scaremongering and that they were still considering the pros and cons of the project…

Peter also had a letter on another of his campaigning issues published in the Yorkshire Post, in response to a story headed ‘Dozens clocked speeding more than 10 times’, which did not tell where these offences occurred - motorways, on A-roads or in towns.

He said: “The vast majority of drivers have spent substantial sums on buying, running and

maintaining their vehicles and are anxious to avoid accidents at all costs, and therefore drive according to the road and the conditions.

“But this is not good enough for the speed-obsessed establishment who set limits which are quite unrealistic for modern traffic. This is clearly demonstrated by the number of prosecutions for infringing a limit on a sign.

“One spokesman said that speeding drivers put everyone on the road in grave danger, and my response is that this is emotive nonsense because "speeding" may just involve doing a little above a number posted on a sign, but may not be dangerous in any way.

“It seems that it is acceptable for police officers to drive high-powered cars at incredible speeds to catch errant drivers (as shown on TV programmes) because they claim to be highly-trained young drivers, but no allowance is made for other drivers who may have many more years of experience and accident-free records.

“The whole issue of speed limits needs to be taken out of the hands of local councils and transport ministers and totally re-assessed by an independent body that includes experienced road-users.

What's wrong with a dual carriageway round the historic city of York?

abd.org.uk

BBC Three Counties Radio interviewed Paul Biggs about ideas to ban young or novice drivers from night driving, which he described as totalitarian, and a restriction to employment.




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




May:Hugh Bladon commented on the City of London introducing a 15mph speed limit on BBC Three Counties Radio. Roger Lawson spoke to The Sun about Heathrow Airport introducing emission charges. Motor1.com quoted the ABD on this subject saying cars and taxis pollute less than what would be caused by their planned extra runway. They intend introducing their own ULEZ charge for cars and PHVs, with a view to it eventually becoming a vehicle access charge levied on everyone, black cabs included.

Local Transport Today published a letter from Paul Biggs replying to critics on the subject of 20mph limits in which he recommended some reading matter to study facts about climate change – and took a swipe at Extinction Rebellion.

Hugh Bladon cropped up again on

BBC Three Counties Radio – this time on 20mph limits. He was also quoted in the Daily Mail commenting on “an idiot checking the movement of his stocks and shares on his mobile phone while driving”.

ABD –in themedia

June:The Newspaper.com reported “UK Parliament Hears From Pro-Motorist Group”. That’s Us! Full reports on the ABD submissions (penned by Malcolm Heymer and Ian Taylor) to the Transport Committee elsewhere in this issue.

Paul Biggs commented on speed after someone caught on dual carriageway (reduced from 70 to 50) with no deaths recorded.

Roger Lawson appeared in My London criticising planned Heathrow expansion for lack of detail – and feared M25 disruption.

He also gave comment to Local Transport Today on the Metropolitan Police’s plans to massively increase London’s speed enforcement and even predicting numbers they expected to catch.

They also published a letter from

him on London parking policies.

Transport Professional is the magazine of The Chartered institute of Highways & Transportation. They published a debate on road pricing, which Ian Taylor wrote an article against – covered on page 12.

Brian Macdowall was quoted in the London Evening Standard. He accused councils of revenue raising after 20,000 drivers were fined for entering one south London pedestrianised street (Surrey Street). Drivers claimed the warning signs were hard to see.

TaxiPoint Taxi News said: National motorist group questions validity of TfL consultation process. That would be us! Roger Lawson suggested they try to avoid consulting on key questions as to whether projects should be done at all.

Compiled by Ian Taylor

Hugh Bladon has been a vocal commentator once again

Here’s a summary of our main media appearances since the last edition of OTR. It’s been as busy as ever.

July:The Shropshire Star featured ABD patron Jill Seymour’s departure from the European Parliament, in which she pledged to continue supporting the ABD and fight anti-car legislation.

Two more interviews for Hugh Bladon. First BBC Radio Wales on pavement parking.

Then BBC Three Counties Radio on mobile phone use in vehicles, a new police gadget to detect them, and the latest push to ban them all, handsfree included.

The Times reported a bin-blocking crackdown with £60 fines and threat of towing in Edinburgh. Nigel Humphries described as a ‘hammer to crack discarded nutshell’.

Hugh Bladon spoke on BBC Radio Leeds against road closures for car-free days. BBC Three Counties Radio interviewed Paul Biggs about ideas to ban young or novice drivers from night driving, which he described as totalitarian, and a restriction to employment, especially in winter. Tuition was preferable.

ABD patron Jill Seymour has left the European Parliament

abd.org.uk

The News (Portsmouth) reported Portsmouth as having the second highest numbers of speed bumps in the country – all in the name of traffic calming and enforcing 20mph limits.




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




August:LBC Radio dealt with the possibility of eye tests for the over-70s. Hugh Bladon said it would be reasonable to have them done (by opticians, to tie in with regular check-ups) and also tie-in with licence renewal every three years.

Local Transport Today ran an item about our PR on the inequitable division of spending between rail and road – also against the argument that road capacity cannot be matched with demand and growth suppression to manage demand is the only answer.

Hugh Bladon was quoted in the Sunday Express saying: “Councils are using parking fines and traffic offences to generate money from motorists who have made accidental mistakes, do not understand, or have not seen the signage” – this in response to figures published by them revealing that councils fine motorists £200,000 an hour.

The story was also covered over following days by The Sun (‘Milking Motorists’), Transport Network, the Daily Mail (quote from Roger Lawson) and Metro. Most of these reports detailed locations where you’re most likely to get caught out.

The News (Portsmouth) reported Portsmouth as having the second highest numbers of speed bumps in the country – all in the name of traffic calming and enforcing 20mph limits. Hugh Bladon said speed bumps weren’t always effective and dismissed them as “a damn nuisance” that can damage small cars.

Still in the south of England, Hugh criticised ‘unapologetic’ Brighton & Hove Council for making £206,000 from bus lane fines in Western Road, Brighton – reported in The Argus.

Motor1.com and TaxiPoint taxi News both reported on our PR criticising London’s Vision Zero safety project.

The Transport Select Committee’s proposal to ban all phones in cars, handsfree included, made a splash this month. Hugh Bladon was on LBC Radio, then BBC Radio Berkshire, then a 20-minute discussion on BBC Radio Belfast.

The same day Nigel Humphries completed a marathon series of interviews: BBC Radio 5 Live, The Victoria Derbyshire Show on BBC Two TV (via Skype), Nova Radio (Newcastle), BBC Essex, BBC Radio Cornwall, BBC Radio Bristol, BBC Hereford & Worcester, BBC Radio Stoke, BBC Radio Northampton, BBC Radio Newcastle, BBC WM, BBC Radio Sheffield and BBC Coventry & Warwickshire.

As if that wasn’t enough, TheNewspaper.com, TaxiPoiunt Taxi News and Staffordshire Live all reported the story, quoting Nigel Humphries. In his own words: “Nigel Humphries is back!”

Lastly, for this time, our PR on 20 limits was reported by Motor1.com, TaxiPoint taxi News, Local Transport Today and Transport Xtra. “Driver’s group launches campaign against blanket 20mph limits”.

That brought a rebuttal from Rod King of 20’s Plenty who accused us of ‘prejudice against road regulation to achieve a more civilised approach to safer lower speeds’.

PressreleasesThe ABD has issued 8 press releases over the past few months.

MayGerman Public Broadcaster

Investigates Air Pollution: English version is a ‘must watch’ for British journalists, policymakers and drivers faced with ULEZ zones. An unbiased and truthful insight into the traffic pollution debate.

JuneFix The Goalposts on Car Taxation.

Uncertainty on tax policies is hitting the car industry – all vehicles should be allowed to reach their end life without extra taxation or forced premature scrappage.

Raising Speed Limits for Lorries has Improved Road Safety and Increased Productivity. Another ABD prediction comes true and the likes of BRAKE are proved wrong again.

JulyFour Decades of Strategic Road

Investment Inaction Have Delivered Congestion Chaos. Road Investment and Road User Taxation – The Truth.

AugustVision Zero Strategy Failing.

ABD Launches Campaign Against 20mph Speed Limits (20’s Senseless).

Drivers ‘Can’ Allow Anything To Distract: Bans Are Not The Solution. In defence of handsfree phone use.

Pedestrian Errors Primary in Accident Causation – Yet ETSC Proposes Still More Anti-Driver Measures.

Social media: You can keep abreast of ABD-related news, and what the ABD is up to on a daily basis, by following us on Twitter (@TheABD), or on Facebook (www.facebook.com/allianceofbritishdrivers)

Don’t forget to retweet our posts to help us gain more followers, and to share or ‘like’ our Facebook posts, encouraging your friends to support us too.

Website: The ABD’s website (www.abd.org.uk) is available to everyone, and there is a members’ site too (members.abd.org.uk).

Both of these contain mountains of information on a diverse range of topics, with links to other useful sites which may help your research.

Log on to find out more, or contact the ABD Webmaster, Chris Ward.

Digital magazine: If you want an electronic version of our On The Road magazine, it is available in pdf format. Latest copies can be downloaded from the ABD members' website.

Action pack: The ABD offers an informative ‘action pack’ which explains the process used by local authorities to set speed limits, and the rights you have to object to new or reduced limits.

The pack costs £5 to non-members, but is free to current members, who just need to send a large SAE to: ABD Action Pack, 3 Wheatcroft Way, Dereham, Norfolk, NR20 3SS.

Alternatively, send correspondence by email to [email protected]

Affiliated organisations: The ABD runs an affiliation scheme, allowing groups which support us to formally recognise the work we do. If you are a member of an organisation you think should be backing the ABD, please inform Terry Hudson and we’ll try to sign them up!

Publicity material: If you would like copies of any ABD literature, please contact our membership secretary.

Please don’t over-order, though, as printing costs are high.

Complain, and write to the media: Object about proposals for new traffic-calming measures and speed limit reductions. Few people do and that’s one of the reasons why they keep happening. Take time, too, to reply to anti-car articles in the media – you may be able to get a debate going, and become a spokesperson shouting up on behalf of drivers.

Fighting fund: The ABD has a fighting fund which welcomes donations at any time, or by standing order if you wish. For more details, contact our membership secretary.

Joint memberships: These are free, and help increase the size of the group. If your partner or spouse isn’t a joint member, sign them up if you can.

Local and regional contacts: If there’s a local campaign in your area, please make contact and join in. If there’s not and you think there needs to be, why not take on the role of campaign manager yourself? (Contact our National Campaign Director to find out how).

National committee: The ABD’s committee is always looking for more members to bring fresh ideas. If you’d like to help out, contact Brian Gregory, Brian Macdowall, Ian Taylor, or email [email protected]

Car stickers: Show your support for the ABD with one of our car stickers. Just send us an A5 size stamped addressed envelope, plus your name, address, phone number and email address to PO Box 1043, Stockton-on-Tees. TS19 1XG.

Contact your MP: We’d encourage all members to write regularly to their local MP, reminding them of their duty to stand up for drivers. It’s best to get their contact details from their local constituency website – contacting them through the Parliament website can be a complicated and long-winded process. Make sure you state that you are a constituent of theirs, to get priority in a reply.

Sign up as a supporter for our free occasional newsletter The Rocky Road:If you’re already a full member with a functioning email address that we know about, you’ll get this anyway – along with announcements and a copy of all press releases we issue nationally.

Stay informed - showsupport and help ABDin spreading the word

abd.org.uk

The ABD has a fighting fund which welcomes donations at any time. Contact our membership secretary for details.

ABD contactsBOARD OF DIRECTORS Ian TaylorChairman, Finance Director,Public Relations Director(including media & online)[email protected] 203351 or 07850 259499

Brian Macdowall Deputy Chairman, CampaignsDirector, Marketing &Recruitment [email protected]

Brian Gregory Policy & Research [email protected]

Paul Biggs Environment (& Research)[email protected]@abd.org.uk COMPANY SECRETARYTerry Hudson TREASURERHugh [email protected]

Assistant – Peter [email protected]

WEBMASTER/SOCIAL MEDIAChris [email protected] ON THE ROAD EDITORCarl [email protected] TECHNICAL ADVISERMalcolm [email protected] MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY/ENQUIRIESDorry [email protected] POSTAL ADDRESSPO Box 1043Stockton-on-TeesTS19 1XG PRESS LINE0870 [email protected] NATIONAL CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR/GENERAL ENQUIRIESBrian [email protected] 369119 or 07930 113232 20’s SENSELESS CO-ORDINATORBrian Gregorywww.20ssenseless.org

LOCAL CAMPAIGNS London: Roger Lawson www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact 0208 295 0378 Roger also runs AMPOW (Against Police Misuse of Waivers), a separate campaign under the ABD “umbrella” Kent: Terry Hudson, [email protected], 01227 792698 Bristol/Bath: Bob Bull, [email protected] Birmingham: ABCAZ (Against Birmingham Clean Air Zone): [email protected] Teesside & North Yorkshire:Dave Bottrilll, [email protected], 07710 565740

The Alliance of British Drivers is the operating name of Pro-Motor Ltd, a non-profit making company limited by guarantee. Registered in England, No. 2945728. Registered Office: 4 King Square, Bridgewater, Somerset, TA6 3DG




































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:







































































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road
























































the Bill








On The Road


























the Bill








On The Road

















They include:

































Stop car wars




on the road · thursday, june 23. road transport over the last three decades has been influenced...

Documents