The ongoing war on the British motorist (part 2) - Motorists face 'zero tolerance' approach to speeding on the motorways

'Radical revenue raising proposals by Befordshire Police and Crime Commissioner means all drivers breaking the speed limit will be fined

All drivers who travel at more than 70 miles per hour on the motorway face being fined under radical new proposals being considered.

Speed cameras would be switched on permanently across stretches of the motorway network catching everyone who exceeded the limit.

Motorists would then be forced to pay a £100 fine as well as having points added to their licence, or could opt instead to attend a speed awareness course, costing £90.

But rather than being used to improve road safety, the controversial plan is intended to raise millions of pounds in revenue for the police.'

At least the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner is being honest with the motoring public, unlike the UK government, see my previous post.

More about this news here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11975971/Motorists-face-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding-on-the-motorways.html

The ongoing war on the British motorist (part 1) - Speeding tickets on 'smart motorways' rise sharply

'The introduction of smart motorways has seen a big rise in speeding fines, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.

Between 2010 and 2015, fixed penalties issued on smart sections increased from 2,000 to 52,000, according to data collated by the BBC's The One Show.

There are more than 236 miles of smart motorways in England, which use the hard shoulder and variable speed limits to control traffic flow.

The government says they are used to improve capacity, not generate revenue.'

Remember that last line, as I'll post something shortly that gives the partial lie to that.

More here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37888207

The new A40 average speed cameras

The new A40 average speed cameras all seem to be up and the signs have started to go up too. It looks like they will be put into operation shortly.

I thought that I would see if the speed limit was feasible to keep to so I tried driving from Paddington to Northolt Airport.

This report is about the elevated section of the A40, I will post about the other sections later this week.

Driving at 40mph on the elevated section of the A40 was very hard, I was getting flashed by other drivers who were speeding (pun intended) past me. As I drove I realised why 40mph felt so slow. I remember that when I first drove on the A40 elevated section it was a restricted urban motorway, called the A40M with a speed limit of 60mph, which felt about right for the road even in my aged early 1970s car. Some years later, maybe when it ceased to be a motorway in 2000, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph which always felt a little slow but most people continued driving at 60mph anyway. This state of affairs continued for quite a while and then there was the issue with the lights failure on the elevated section and the speed limit was reduced to 40mph. This of course makes no sense: in daylight the lighting is of no relevance and at night I believe that most cars have headlights.

In fact I have done some digging and it seems from this and this that the speed limit was meant to go back up to 50mph when the A40 repairs had been finished. Indeed this report from May 2011 says that:

'Transport for London (TfL) dropped the limit from 50 to 30mph in February as it made repairs to the expansion joints.

...

But TfL will put the limit up to 40mph on the eastbound carriageway on Sunday morning, and on the westbound carriageway one week later. They say it should be back to 50mph by late summer.'

That's late summer 2011, why did this not happen?

Instead what we have on the elevated section of the A40 in London is the speed limit reducing from 60mph to 50mph and then to 40mph and then the introduction of a average speed cameras to enforce this reduced speed limit.

Some would argue that this was about revenue raising, using the driver as a cash cow. Others would claim that it was about criminalising the motorist. I wouldn't disagree with either of these points but I actually think it's more sinister; this is about control. As I drove along at 40mph on the elevated section of the A40 I felt cowed by the cameras, powerless in the face of the state; and that is how the state want us to be.

Average speed cameras to blight the life of many Londoners

One of my early pieces on this blog was about the new cameras appearing on the A406 that I thought could become average speed cameras. They didn't but anyone travelling along some of London's main roads will have noticed new gantries and cameras appearing. These are for a new average speed camera system that will soon infest four trial sites and then no doubt spread their revenue raising way across the capital.

The first four road sections to be blighted are the A406 (North Circular Road) from the Hanger Lane Gyratory to Bounds Green Road; the A40 from the Polish War Memorial to the Paddington slip road, the A2 from Black Prince to Tunnel Avenue and the A316 from the M3 to the Hogarth roundabout.

The claim from Transport for London (TfL) is that these are to eradicate accidents at gaps between existing, but obsolete spot speed cameras. But the reality is that they are to a) raise revenue and b) victimise drivers who realise that the 40mph speed limit on most of these roads is set far too low for the quality of the roads.

A report to TfL’s finance policy committee, which approved the spending on the trial, said members had “concerns about the public acceptability” of the new cameras.I bet they have.


In France there would be riots, I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but the motorist needs to fight back somehow. Any suggestions?

I favour a drive slow when 20 motorists in each direction on each section on the same day all drive at 4mph preceded by a man with a red flag, for that is what  the anti-car zealots would like us to return to, after all it would reduce traffic accidents for as well know, 'Speed Kills'. Except it doesn't...

This is of course rubbish as I pointed out over seven years ago

"A DfT strategy paper claimed speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents". The "excessive and inappropriate speed" that helped "to kill about 1,200 people" each year was "far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads". The source given for this claim, to be repeated as a mantra by ministers and officials for years to come, was a report from the government's Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 323: "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". Not many people would have looked at this report, since it was only available for £45. But some who did were amazed. The evidence the report had cited to support its claim that speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents" simply wasn't there. Many other factors were named as contributing to road accidents, from driving without due care and attention to the influence of drink; from poor overtaking to nodding off at the wheel. But the figure given for accidents in which the main causative factor was "excessive speed" was way down the list, at only 7.3 per cent."

Do read the whole of that piece but this extract might also prove interesting:

"The statistics for Durham showed that, of 1,900 collisions each year, only three per cent involved cars that were exceeding the speed limit, just 60 accidents a year. Look more closely at the causes of these 60 accidents, the "actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving". Drug-taking was now involved in 40 per cent of Durham's fatal road accidents. Many accidents, he said, were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right. To none of these could speed cameras offer any remedy. "The cause of accidents," Garvin (chief constable of Durham) concluded, "is clearly something different from exceeding the speed limit"."

Also

"In September 2006, the DfT finally conceded one of the central points that Safe Speed's Paul Smith had been arguing for five years: that only five per cent of road accidents were caused by drivers who were breaking the speed limit. In The Daily Telegraph, Smith was quoted as saying "the government's case for continuing to install cameras has been destroyed"."

So the truth is that speed cameras do not make the roads safer, are not needed and are being used to raise revenue - who would have thought it?

EU has secret plan for police to 'remote stop' cars - Telegraph

' The European Union is secretly developing a "remote stopping" device to be fitted to all cars that would allow the police to disable vehicles at the flick of a switch from a control room.'

More here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

Because there's no way that a car could be disabled by mistake or the disabling device activate mistakenly or be hacked... Bloody dangerous and contrary to civil liberties. I presume the British Labour party are therefore in favour...

This should be interesting

The BBC report that:

'Councils in England should publish annual parking-charge accounts if they want to prove they are not being used as a "cash cow", MPs have said.

The Transport Committee warned it was "neither acceptable nor legal" to use fines to increase revenue.

Councils made a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, it added.

The MPs urged ministers to freeze charges, currently capped at £130 in London and £70 outside. Councils said money raised went back into services.

Committee chairman, Labour MP Louise Ellman, said: "There is a deep-rooted public perception that parking enforcement is used as a cash cow, so it's essential that local authorities apply stringent transparency."'

If any accounts are published, then I doubt that they will be transparent. Many local councils use parking fines as a form of transgression tax that doesn't show up as an increase in local taxation.

The one hundred and fifty fourth weekly "No shit Sherlock" award

'A motoring organisation has said a Nottinghamshire village which has eight different speed limits in just over a mile of road may be confusing drivers.' 

More here http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-22728917


'eight different speed limits in just over a mile of road may be confusing drivers.' No shit, Sherlock

This madness has to stop

From the BBC travel website (my emphasis)

M25 Greater London, clockwise between A127 [M25 junction 29] and A13 Lakeside [M25 junction 30]

M25 Greater London - M25 closed, queueing traffic and long delays clockwise between J29, A127 (Romford) and J30, A13 (Lakeside), because of accident investigation work. Diversion in operation - via the hollow triangle, the A127, A128 and the A13 to rejoin at J30. Congestion to J27 M11.

A406 North Circular Road West London, southbound between Abbey Road and A40 Western Avenue

A406 London - A406 North Circular Road in West London closed, severe delays and queueing traffic southbound between Park Royal and Hanger Lane Gyratory, because of a serious accident involving at least two lorries. Congestion to Henly's Corner and to Chiswick Roundabout.

The accident that closed the M25 happened at 12:30 today; nearly seven hours later, it's still closed. 

The accident that closed the A406 happened at lunchtime; some six hours or so later it's still closed.

I know accidents need investigating and that the injured and their vehicles need clearing from the scene. BUT surely the needs of the thousands of drivers unable to travel where they need to go, or at least delayed for hours, as traffic snarls up around the scene of the accident and in surrounding roads should be taken into account.

After all the A406 incident resulted in about 50m of the central barrier being damaged, three men being injured and taken to hospital - one man was taken as a priority to St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, with neck pain, the other two were treated for shoulder pain at North Middlesex Hospital. Hardly carnage was it.

The M25 incident was more serious as three heavy goods vehicles and five cars were involved in the crash.Essex Fire Service had to cut three people free who were trapped in their vehicles. Two people were airlifted to Royal London Hospital via helicopter and are said to be in a serious condition.
Two adults and a child were taken to Basildon hospital but their injuries are not described as life threatening.

Do the BBC take notice of what I write?

Following on from this post from yesterday I noticed that on BBC 5Live this morning they have started saying that the Olympic lanes are for competitors, officials and 'media'. A small victory?

The BBC not telling us the whole story

The BBC have consistently been telling us that the Olympic Lanes (Zil lanes) are for the use of the 'Olympic Family' or for 'athletes and officials'. The BBC stuck to this story when last week reporting that some Government ministers could also use the lanes.

You will not be surprised to learn that there is another group of people who are allowed to use the Olympic Route Network.

Olympic Route Network (ORN)

The ORN will come into operation and be enforced from 0600 Wednesday 25 July. This also includes 30 miles of ‘Games Lanes’ for the use of athletes, officials and the world’s media to get them to their events on time. Games Lanes will be operated flexibly and opened to regular traffic if there are times when they are less busy. A network of 150 Variable Message Signs along the route will advise motorists when Games Lanes are open to regular traffic.

Did you spot 'the world’s media'? I presume that includes the BBC. Once again, one rule for them and one for us. If the temperature stays in the 80s and there is a long queue on the A40 reduced to two lanes from three, whilst the occasional Olympic BMW and the odd BBC outside broadcast van whizz past in the Zil Lane then I foresee trouble from pissed off Londoners.

Who to believe Ken Livingstone or Ken Livingstone?

Last week I read in The Standard one of the most incredible headlines that I have ever read 'Ken vows to freeze C-charge in a car-friendly transport manifesto'. The story explained that:

'Ken Livingstone today promised to freeze the congestion charge at £10 for the next four years if he wins the race for City Hall.

 Labour's mayoral candidate ruled out reinstating the zone's western extension which was scrapped by Boris Johnson.

And he rejected a £25 gas guzzler charge - a key pledge at the the last election - saying it would be too expensive'

Hmm those are some interesting promises for the usually anti-private motoring Ken Livingstone.

So should I believe the above promises made by Ken Livingstone in full cuddly vote-garnering mode or look at his history and previous statements?

Remember it was Ken Livingstone that introduced the congestion zone in the first place, before that Londoners could actually drive into the centre of their city without having to pay for the privilege; imagine that. Ken also introduced the western extension to the congestion zone during his second term despite massive opposition to it. It was Boris Johnson who kept his election pledge when he scrapped the western extension, with none of the dire consequences that Ken and others predicted.

As to the £25 charge for family sized 'gas guzzlers', Ken Livingstone introduced this policy in 2007 when mayor, here is the TFL proposal leaflet. Please remember that this wasn't just an idea Ken Livingstone was just considering, he had even decided on the date it was to be introduced - 27th October 2008. Thankfully Boris Johnson was elected mayor and scrapped the policy immediately. On 6th April last year Ken Livingstone was asked about this £25 charge and replied "Oh yes the £25 charge for gas guzzlers we’ll be straight back for that’, he also told the Guardian "It's definitely an idea we will revisit."

So who to believe: Ken Livingstone or Ken Livingstone? Well I tend to discount anything Ken Livingstone promises those, other than his core constituency, during an election campaign when he is just looking for votes and instead believe what he says when in his normal mode. So I believe Ken Livingstone wants to extend the congestion zone to the west again and to introduce a £25 charge for 'gas guzzlers' and these are jut two more reasons not to vote for Ken Livingstone.

How some police treat motorists

Two stories re how some police treat motorists have caught my eye recently.

The first is from the BBC and runs thus:

'Three police officers assaulted a motorist and his teenage passenger after stopping the driver for using a mobile phone, a court has heard.

Westminster Magistrates' Court was told the Scotland Yard officers left Lee Rosier, 24, and his 14-year-old passenger with cut lips and abrasions.

Mr Rosier was driving home from a classic car rally in west London when the officers allegedly attacked him.

PC Anthony Read, 35, PC Karl Bartlett, 42, and PC Colin Nye, 37, deny assault.

The court heard the officers pulled the Cosworth car over as it approached the A40 at Hanger Lane after Mr Rosier made a phone call while driving on 1 March 2011.

One of the officers from the Met's Territorial Support Group approached the car, opened the door and pulled Mr Rosier out before head-butting him, the jury was told.

Mr Rosier said: "He drags me out. It is lucky I had enough strength to put my feet on the floor or I would have fallen on my face."

In a statement to police at the time of the alleged incident he said he was then kneed in the back and forced down to the ground.

Mr Rosier's brother Billy told the court he was travelling behind in another car when the incident happened.

"I jumped out of the car. I saw what they were doing to my brother so I started running. They had his head in the kerb and they had him in handcuffs.

"It looked to me like they had their knees in his back."'

Yes using a mobile telephone (unless handsfree) is dangerous and illegal but does it warrant being attacked?


Driving whilst not wearing a seat belt is also illegal and dangerous to oneself if in an accident but does that excuse this behaviour from members of the South Wales police?

'Footage captured on a police dashboard camera shows one officer striking the driver's seat window with a baton up to 15 times and another officer jumping on the bonnet of the car and kicking the windscreen in an apparent attempt to crack it.

Police pulled over Robert Whatley, 70, for not wearing a seat belt as he drove through country lanes in South Wales. The 8-mile chase started after officers tried to give Mr Whatley a fixed penalty notice but he drove off.'

 Yes Mr Whatley should not have driven off but did he deserve the ferocity of that attack on his car?

Do speed cameras reduce accident numbers?

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) have their doubts and the figures to prove it. This is the first article from July:

'Lancashire has been one of the first counties to publish its speed camera statistics under new government rules and locals are horrified.

The Lancashire Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed (countywide analysis may reveal more).

According to the Evening Post those same three cameras raked in £18,000 in fines from motorists in 2010. 1

ABD chairman Brian Gregory commented.

“Not only is it scandalous that cameras where casualties have increased have been kept in operation for many years, it is even more disturbing that the authorities have hidden this data and authorised continued operation whilst being in possession of this knowledge. The government should get a grip and insist that those responsible for such malpractice in all regions are removed from public service with immediate effect.”'

 You might be even more interested in this pdf of a report entitled 'A Review of the Effectiveness of Speed Cameras'. Here's the Preface:

'A careful examination of the RAC Foundation report entitled “The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras”, authored by Professor Richard Allsop, by the Association of British Drivers has identified some questionable methodological procedures, defective analyses and significant omissions. In our view these severely
compromise the validity of its conclusions and recommendations.

The excessive reliance on speed cameras in the UK over the last two decades has affected road safety adversely. A massive diversion of resources towards speed enforcement and away from more cost-effective alternatives has regrettably resulted. This process has primarily been driven - and supported - by
the financial interests of the equipment manufacturers and of the safety camera partnerships, rather than by concerns for improvement in UK road safety.

Speed cameras are far less effective than Prof. Allsop’s paper claims. They are also far less cost effective than other available devices. Resources misdirected on speed camera enforcement would, in our view, have resulted in far greater road casualty reductions - and particularly in the KSI (Killed and Seriously
Injured) figures - had they been employed on alternative road safety measures.

Independent evidence shows that Vehicle Activated Signs are 50 times more cost effective than speed cameras; yet the proponents of speed cameras continue to argue for their use. It is in the public interest to correct any misapprehensions which may have been created by the widely distributed, but
potentially misleading, Allsop paper.

We therefore commissioned the attached report which has been produced by a suitably-qualified ABD member. It has been peer-reviewed by a number of other senior ABD members; and by other, wholly independent researchers with an interest in this topic. We believe that it addresses all the key points.
Despite their complexities, we hope that you will read both studies and so identify for yourself the shortcomings in the Allsop paper. These are sufficient in number to seriously compromise many of its conclusions regarding the effectiveness of speed cameras as a road safety tool.'

Friday afternoon catch-up

Once again I have too many Firefox tabs and not enough time, so here we go:

1) Politics Home reveal why the LibDems control the coalition government.

2) The Telegraph reports that the Crown Prince of Iran is calling for aid for the demonstrators but unlike in Egypt Barack Obama and the western media are just not interested. Why the double standards Barack Obama? It is almost as though you want Islamists to keep and gain power in the Middle East.

3) The Blaze think that they may have video proof that Mexican authorities are operating inside of the USA.

4) Harry Phibbs in The Mail thinks that we should not get rid of the First Past The Post voting system.

5) Devils Kitchen agrees with me that National Insurance is a ponzi scheme and just as out of control as Bernie Madoff's and that the government's response will make us all poorer (except for the unemployed).

6) Gates of Vienna thinks that the BBC has broken its charter and explains at length why - all relating to Geert Wilders and radical Islam.

7)The Mail reports that the Royal Society has realised that 'A'Levels are now not fit for purpose - That's the comprehensive education system and 13 years of a Labour government dumbing down exams for you.

8) OyVaGoy has 10 facts that 'they' don't want you to know about the evil right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

9) CIF Watch have spotted that even The Guardian's travel section is influenced by the newspaper's anti-Israel agenda.

10) Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph thinks that the state can be successfully shrunk and that Ronald Reagan US Presidency should be the model.

11) The BBC report on a rather nasty comment made by one of their heroes - the Irish tax avoider Bono.

12) Harry's Place explains why iEngage should not be allowed to serve as the secretariat to the all party parliamentary group on Islamaphobia. Very sound stuff as always from Harry's Place now one of my favourite blogs.

13) The Mail managed to report the interesting fact that 'Road deaths dropped 14 per cent in three months while speed cameras were being axed or switched off.  Fatalities over a year fell 21 per cent to a record low, Department for Transport figures show.'

14) Finally The Mail reports on the Indian inventor who claims to have invented the flying car - unfortunately its a flying 1980s Maruti.

The role of the British police

Three relevant cases have come to my attention in the past few days. The best known is probably that of Michael Thompson who whilst driving his car in Grimsby noticed a mobile speed camera and that many oncoming cars seemed to be speeding. He decided to flash those cars to warn them to slow down. As a result he found himself in court and found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties.Now this strikes me as rather peculiar. Did any of the drivers flashed by Michael Thompson slow down? If they did then surely the road was safer as a result and thus Michael Thompson was providing a public good. So what offence did Michael Thompson actually commit? I cannot see how Michael Thompson stopped the speed trap from working or interfered with the work of the Police. Was the role of the police officers on that day to measure the speed of passing vehicles and to fine any that were driving faster than the legal speed limit? If so then Michael Thompson did not obstruct their work.If this was not their assigned role, then what was it?


If Michael Thompson was simply warning others to adjust their, then, future behaviour so as to reduce their exposure to criminal liability then how is this wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties? Surely the signs outside every office that Smoking is not permitted within this building is also preventing a crime from being committed, is not a sign in a town centre advertising that CCTV is in operation is also designed to prevent a crime from being committed. Why are some crimes worthy of being prevented but motoring offences must be captured and the drivers prosecuted or fined?

I believe that the Crown Prosecution Service's case explanation included the note that The Highway Code informs drivers to

'Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.'

It would seem that Michael Thompson clearly breached this part of The Highway Code; however a breach of the Highway Code is not necessarily a criminal offence and that was not what Michael Thompson was charged with.

So why has Michael Thompson now got a criminal record? Is it simply because he encouraged others to stay within the law and upset a police officer by so doing?
Is this what the 21st century British police think their role is?


In another story, The Mail reports that:

'A police officer escorted an expectant mother to hospital just minutes before she gave birth - then slapped her husband with a ticket for speeding.

John Coughlin was handed the penalty for driving 102mph in a 55mph zone as he rushed wife Angela to the delivery room of the Catholic Medical Centre in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The trooper waited outside as the couple’s baby boy Kyle was born, six minutes after their arrival at the hospital, then pounced on the excited new father as he emerged to call relatives.'

That story is from the United States but I wonder if you doubt it could happen in the UK. The cases of jobsworth police issuing tickets to people they know will pay the fine, rather than looking to catch burglars, muggers and vandals are legion.


Finally Kable reports that:

'Millions of people who reported crimes have had their details stored on police databases

The revelation has emerged from information provided in response to a freedom of information request from the Press Association. It shows that police forces in England and Wales have kept data about people who call 999 or non-emergency numbers to report their concerns or pass on information.

The study discovered that West Midlands Police has more than a million records on people who have reported offences over the past 12 years.

Other forces, including Lancashire, Cleveland, Avon and Somerset, Gloucestershire, West Mercia and North Wales, hold more than 150,000 each.

The Press Association said that senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation. However, they insisted gathering the data was necessary to fight crime, protect the vulnerable and ensure concerns were dealt with properly.'

To the modern British police and their political masters, every member of the public is likely to be guilty of something and so should be watched. The number of crimes on the statute book increases year after year so that the State could choose when to arrest any one of us, after all we are all likely to have infringed one law or other at some time.


Over two years ago I blogged that:

'These transgression taxes are easy to collect if middle-class, law-abiding people are the transgressors and that is why it is them rather than the violent or dangerous that are targeted. A 'street warden' will be more likely to issue a fine to a 50 year-old householder whose bin is overfull because they had a party or who has managed to include a piece of plastic wrapping in the paper recycling bin, than he/she would be to try and fine six youths who are throwing empty beer cans at a bin on the High Street, and missing. The householder is easier to identify, more likely to pay and much less likely to give the "street warden" a good kicking.

If Michael Thompson had heeded my words and stayed cowed rather than protesting when pulled over by the police maybe he would not have been charged, fined and found himself the owner of a criminal record.

Speed Camera information to be made public

Kable are reporting that:

'The Department for Transport is proposing that councils and police will have to publish data about speed cameras.

The data could include accident rates at speed camera sites, vehicle speeds and the numbers of drivers prosecuted or offered training after offences recorded on camera.'

The legislation is scheduled for implementation in April, when we should be able to see how many lives are really saved by speed cameras. I wonder if we will also be able to compare accident rates before and after camera installation?

M4 bus lane being removed!

Sky News report that:

'Work is beginning this evening to remove the unpopular bus lane from the M4.

The M4 eastbound, between junctions 3 and 2, is being closed overnight for four nights this week and next, while the M4 westbound will be closed for three nights from tonight.

Road signs and road markings will be removed and a revised road layout put in place.'

Thank you Philip Hammond, thank you David Cameron; f**k you John Prescott.

"We don't need no traffic control"?

Back in May 2007 in one of my early bloggings I wrote about a recent failure of some traffic lights that resulted in shorter queues of traffic:

'Traffic leading onto the Chiswick roundabout on a Sunday or Bank Holiday Monday is usually terrible; long queues especially coming from Kew Bridge, from the A4 going east and off the North Circular Road going south. So I was surprised to find hardly any traffic queueing on this Bank Holiday Monday. The reason, the lights had failed and so the traffic was filtering nicely onto the roundabout in the way that people filter onto roundabouts that have no traffic lights on them. There was less traffic queueing on all roads coming onto the roundabout than would normally be the case. I have experienced this before at major crossroads as well, drivers do a better job of managing the traffic movement than does an imposed control system.

I presume that the traffic lights will be fixed early this week and so next weekend the queues will be as big as was previously the case!'

Note that I reported that 'the lights had failed and so the traffic was filtering nicely onto the roundabout'.

I was reminded of this piece by something I read at The UK Libertarian who has posted two videos; the first explains the theory and shows what happens when traffic lights fail at a junction in Central London, the second shows what happens when a local council (Portishead) turns off traffic lights as an experiment. In both case my point that people filter and the traffic runs quicker is confirmed and pedestrians seem happy as well.


The fist junction shown is one I know well being the junction of Goodge Street & Charlotte Street. This is a fairly busy junction during the day and well into the evening as Charlotte Street is a road at its southern end that is devoted to eating and drinking. Watch how the cars, vans, motorcycles and bikes all take it in turns to cross or turn with no hooting, aggression or queues. The second junction is just North of the Barbican and is also a junction I know well having crossed it from each direction many times. Note again the way the traffic flows more easily and how pedestrians are crossing seemingly without having to wait as long as they do now for the lights to change. I have never been to Sweden, let alone Knorrkopping. Will Westminster Council try out this idea or do they earn too much money from junction control cameras?


This is from the Portishead lights-off trial which began on 14 September 2009 and went permanent after journey times fell by over half with no loss of pedestrian safety. Watch the video and especially listen to the woman interviewed before and after the experiment from 1:15 to 2:14.


In the first video do ignore the narrator's comment that 'is it any wonder that polar bears are running out of ice" - someone else seems to have fallen for another piece of eco propaganda.


For more information please visit Fit Roads who have the wonderful slogan/mission statement 'Advancing the right of all road-users to use commonsense on roads free of vexatious traffic controls'. It's not often that the word vexatious appears in a such a place.

Sunday morning catchup (Part 2)

1) Archbishop Cranmer has posted his thoughts on the 10:10 video and the comparison with the Islamist parody that I posted earlier today:

'by what reasoning was the original 10:10 Richard Curtis film ever deemed to be morally acceptable? Does this communicate truth, or is it a perversion of a creed? Does it incite hatred, or is it legitimate expression of belief?

What would be the response if those being exploded were homosexuals?

Or Muslims?

Or Socialists?

Isn't this precisely what the 'Islamist' in our midst did on 7th July 2005? You take your bombs onto London underground, identify the unbeliever, press a button and blow him to smithereens. Why is it 'funny' to blow up those who happen to believe that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, yet grossly offensive to liquidate others for their sincerely-held beliefs?

Perhaps blowing 'the Right' to kingdom come is a legitimate pursuit: the world would doubtless be a far better place without heterosexual homophobes, Christian Islamophobes and Thatcherites.

And you can count on the pathologically-socialist luvvies and darlings to donate their time and talent free of charge in this righteous pursuit.

But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?'

2) UN Watch explains that:

'The U.N. commission into Israel’s May 31 flotilla clash declared during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate today that “even if Bin Laden himself were on the Mavi Maramara, Israel’s blockade would still be illegal.”

The statement was made by commissioner Desmond de Silva in response to questions posed in the council plenary by the Geneva-based UN Watch as to why the probe ignored voluminous evidence it submitted regarding the stated intentions of the Islamist flotilla members to physically confront Israel and become “Shahids,” or martyrs. (See below for statement and response from UN flotilla commission.)

The chair of the flotilla probe, Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, said that he had never heard the term “Shahid” before. However, he insisted that, in any event, the intentions of the IHH activists carried no legal relevance.

Some international lawyers disagree. “It is astonishing that the UN panel now openly admits to disregarding our evidence as to the violent, Jihadist and suicidal intentions of the IHH militants on the Mavi Marmara,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“That the head of the probe said he never heard the word ‘Shahid’ before today means that he never even looked at the numerous video testimonies and other compelling evidence that we submitted to his inquiry,” said Neuer.

“Contrary to the commissioners’ attempt to downplay this evidence, the truth is that the entire interpretation of the facts hinges on who was the aggressor, and whether Israel’s soldiers attacked peaceful activists or instead acted in self-defense in face of a violent mob seeking to lynch them.”

“The declared intentions and state of mind of the passengers is extremely relevant. Indeed, the report itself touches on the question of whether the passengers’ purpose was humanitarian or political. Evidence that seven of the nine passengers killed in the clash had previously declared their intent to become ‘martyrs’ is something the inquiry obviously should have examined, yet failed to do so,” said Neuer.

“Moreover, while we submitted over 40 items (see submissions here)-whose receipt the UN acknowledged-the commission chair said today that he looked at only two. This is absolutely unacceptable. UN Watch calls on the Chair of the Human Rights Council to urgently investigate this serious breach of due process before the council votes on the report tomorrow.”'

Anti-Israel bias at the United nations, I am shocked...


3) The Mail reports on the charitable exploits of Bono:

'Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.

The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).

The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1million went towards paying salaries.'

1.2% sounds pathetic.

'ONE spokesman Oliver Buston has now defended the way the organisation is run, insisting the money is used for promoting its campaign and raising awareness rather than being given straight to those who need help.

He said: 'We don't provide programmes on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation.'

Another spokesman in New York today dismissed the notion of lavish salaries being paid to its 120 members of staff and said the organisation was highly efficient in its raising of awareness.'

£5.1 million split between 120 staff is an average of £43,333.


4) The Telegraph report the unsurprising news that: 'Millions of parking tickets are being issued illegally all over the UK, according to a leading expert.'

Taxing the motorist

Yesterday The Telegraph reported that

'Motoring organisations and business leaders have expressed concern at plans to charge people hundreds of pounds a year to park their cars at work after councils were ordered by the Government to find new ways of raising money. '

Yes it's the return of the parking at work charge that we all hoped had been buried.

What is most annoying is that whilst people will complain they will pay it and yet another tax on the hardworking British worker will be in place. One day maybe 100% of our income will be taken by the State and we will be allowed tax credits based on perceived need - for taxpayers will soon be slaves to the state. So long as the non-taxed have equal voting rights as taxpayers, what incentive is there for spending to be controlled? The cry must be 'No representation without taxation'