Category Archives: Transport

Godfrey Bloom: Brexit, Driverless Cars, and Removing Philip Hammond’s Revolving Credit Card


This morning, on the Jonathan Cowap show on BBC Radio York, our Honorary President Godfrey Bloom was involved in an opinion panel discussing topics ranging over marriage, Brexit, driverless cars, social care, and the credit card industry. The discussion was spread over several interview sessions. He was paired with Abigail Scott Paul of the Joseph Rowntree foundation.

If you would like to listen to the various elements of the opinion panel, please click on the different audio links below:

Marriage and Brexit:

Driverless Cars and Social Care:

Dog Ownership and Credit Limits for Individuals and the UK State:

 

Advertisements

The Social Costs of Air Pollution from Cars in the UK


By Neil Lock

(Author’s Note. This is an updated and re-written version of my earlier paper “Diesel Fumes” on the same subject).

Back in April the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced from the coming October a £10 a day “toxicity charge” for pre 2006 cars, both petrol and diesel, entering the current London congestion charge zone. He also set out plans for a London “Ultra Low Emissions Zone” (ULEZ) [1]. From April 2019 (brought forward from September 2020), it will cost £12.50 per day to drive in this zone a diesel car first registered before September 2015, or a petrol car built before 2006. Furthermore, he plans to extend this zone to the area inside the North and South Circular roads by 2021.

Read more

Diesel fumes: Is the UK’s witch-hunt against diesel cars driven by zealotry and greed, not science?


(Author’s Note: This paper is an example of a relatively new phenomenon; “citizen science.” And citizen science deserves citizen peer review. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate review of this paper by those with the skills to do so; whether or not they live in the UK, or drive diesel cars. Thank you.)

The recent uproar over “toxin taxes” on diesel cars in the UK raises many questions. So, in this (long) essay, I’m going to try to get a handle on how big the cost of pollution from diesel cars really is, and whether the schemes being proposed to ameliorate it are sensible or not. To do that, I’ll try to estimate the so-called “social cost” of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from diesel cars of different ages in the UK, in pounds per car per year.

If my calculations are right, there is some justification for central London pollution charges for diesel cars built before 2006; for, as I work it out, the social cost of the pollution from these cars is almost £300 per car per year. However, the further schemes in London and countrywide, that are planned to start as early as 2019, are out of all proportion to the reality of the problem. They will cost 8 million or so drivers of diesel cars, first registered between January 2006 and August 2015, orders of magnitude more than the social cost of the pollution their cars emit. Worse, these drivers – including me – may be forced to scrap our cars well before the end of their designed lives. Is this not grossly unjust?

According to my calculations, for a diesel car first registered between September 2010 and August 2015, like mine, the London ULEZ entry fees from 2019 for just two days in a year will be almost as much as the social cost of pollution from that car for the whole year, in comparison to a new (since September 2015) car, which won’t be charged at all. That is both unreasonable and unfair. Indeed, for both these cars and those first registered between 2006 and 2010, it would be far better and easier to collect the social cost of pollution through the yearly licence fee.

Read more

Kick Anti-Racism out of Football!


D J Webb

I’m personally sick of football being used to promote the politics of racial and national dispossession.

Football fans should not be subject to political propaganda of any type. There should be no link between attending a football match and espousing right-on views on racial relations.

UEFA and any other football association should have no policies on race and racism, and no footballer should be investigated by kangaroo courts held to establish his political views.

I should add that I regard football as a low-brow interest, and I’m not a supporter of any team, and I know nothing about the off-side rule. My only focus in this article is on the _politicisation of football_. Read more

Libertarian Road Safety


by Daniel Harding

In this post, I’m going to discuss how private roads can be made safe for drivers, motorcyclists, and other road users. First of all, when I say ‘road safety’ here, I mean the use of rules to determine how someone travelling on a road should use it to avoid as much danger as is possible. Now even for a die-hard libertarian who hates the state, it must be admitted that roads need to have some rules applied to them; speed rules in particular. How then do we achieve this without each private road applying rules to the property in a subjective manner that leads to confusion and chaos?

Read more

Why Not Demand Less Taxi Regulation, Not More?


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/JF6fKQ4hLEk/why-not-demand-less-taxi-regulation-not.html

Why Not Demand Less Taxi Regulation, Not More? Yes, this is one of DP’s occasional transport geekery posts, so look away now if it’s not your bag.

Being in transport myself, I just couldn’t let the recent palaver surrounding Uber pass without comment as I’ve found it extremely interesting in the past few months. My transport news sources have been mentioning this growing dispute for a while now, and it’s come up in Transport for London email bulletins too, but with London Taxi drivers planning a hissy fit on Wednesday, the BBC – especially – has gone to town on the story this week. Read more

The Continuing War on Motorists


by Rex Poulton

Are you aware of the following about the new (secretive) speed cameras ? See the item below

When speed cameras are widely known for failing disastrously in the purpose given them by an overbearing and dictatorial government, why are more types of camera being tried and installed?

We all know that speed does not cause accidents. Speed cameras do not pick up the inattentive, the drunken, those on drugs or the illegal immigrant drivers having no licence or insurance. And do not forget that 80% of road accidents occur at less than 20 miles per hour and 70% of accidents occur on urban roads.

As a mere 5% of main road traffic accidents are in any way speed related, why is Governmental fixation on speed control so manic ?

As a secretively employed and unmarked means of speed detection, isn’t this further proof of a burgeoning dictatorial police state where “We will catch you breaking the law no matter what it takes”. Isn’t it just to bring more stealth tax money into government coffers? That, and to remind us who is the boss?

And most importantly, funded ultimately by the motoring public, isn’t this most underhand secret criminalisation of drivers an illegitimate use of our tax money?

You may want to watch out for these rather sneaky new speed cameras. Two are already in operation on the A52 dual carriageway into Nottingham (I’m told), see attached photograph, and six further cameras became operational on the A1 between Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire and Oakham, Rutland on Monday 22nd October 2012. Take care.

« Older Entries