No alternative to welfare cuts, intone ignorant government ministers. The Opposition is just as bad. No, there is no possible way of putting to better use the tens of billions that support our brutal, unequal, inefficient traffic control system.
No alternative to welfare cuts, intone ignorant government ministers. The Opposition is just as bad. No, there is no possible way of putting to better use the tens of billions that support our brutal, unequal, inefficient traffic control system.
As far as I know, no-one has died from phone hacking. On the other hand, every year on our mismanaged roads, 25,000 humans are killed or seriously injured. Phone hacking is never out of the media. But The Times thinks my Jan 2007 article about the iniquity of the traffic control system is job done. Newsnight, too, see no reason to revisit the subject since my Jan 2008 report, despite 150,000 road deaths and serious injuries in the meantime, and despite progressive schemes which show that equality eliminates “accidents”.
Former transport minister, Philip Hammond, now defence secretary, says further cuts in the armed forces would be wrong, so cuts should fall in welfare. There is no silver bullet, said someone else, repeating the moronic mantra that the media accept without question. There is a silver bullet: traffic system reform. Replacing standard control with self-control. The savings? At least £50bn a year. Who would be disadvantaged? The purveyors of traffic control systems. No-one else.
A blog post about the launch of the Poynton film: here.
Blog post by Dick Puddlecote about the IEA Poynton film launch here.
The little town of Poynton in Cheshire puts to shame cities such as London, Brighton, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge by introducing the UK’s most innovative traffic scheme to date, proving that equality expressed through design can tame, decongest and render safe the busiest of junctions: video here.
Of course it was ill-judged of Chris Huhne not to own up when the story broke, but how can you pervert the course of justice when speeding law based on numbers is intrinsically unjust?
As I wrote in Feb 2012: If Chris Huhne’s alleged act perverts the course of justice, does non-discretionary traffic regulation pervert the cause of justice?
From May, 2011: Whether or not Chris Huhne tried to pass the buck, his saga reveals the contortions to which citizens can be driven to escape the tentacles of a system that values the letter of the law above the spirit. Speed does not kill. It’s inappropriate speed that kills, or speed in the wrong hands. BRAKE! would claim that freedom to exercise judgement based on context is a licence to drive carelessly. On the contrary, it’s a blueprint for driving with true care and attention.
Traffic lights in locations such as the one featured here not only make roads dangerous, cause needless delay, maximise fuel use and emissions, they represent highway robbery, public indecency and public disservice. How can anyone countenance such tactics?
20mph limits are spreading – see this piece in The Independent. Aims overlap with mine (road safety and quality of life), but 20 is a number, and it should be about context. If 20’s Plenty is helping change the culture, fine. But the fixation with numbers is infantile and depressing, as is the extra signage and open door to yet more enforcement. Trust Oxford Council – against the spirit of humanity and learning – to be at the forefront of the drive to punish and extract money from people driving according to context and commonsense.
The Connecticut shooting is appalling, but – not to diminish it – hundreds of children are killed on UK roads every year. The latest rampage in the US is the one-off act of an identifiable, disturbed individual. Much of the under-reported peacetime carnage on our roads is the result of misguided policy whose anonymous agents repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum and fail to explore authentic solutions.