It is clear to me that I have offended the motoring gods and yesterday they sent me a warning!
Rosie and I were travelling north on the M1 yesterday lunchtime; heading for Nottingham to collect more of her stuff to move into my flat. I was driving and just South of Leicester, as I pulled into the middle lane to overtake a horse box, I heard a loud bang. Looking round I saw dust and smoke coming from the right hand side of a white transit van that had just overtaken us in the right hand lane.
As we watched the van swung sharply to the left across in front of us at a complete right angle to the road as it crossed the the middle lane, sliding sideways at at least 60mph. It narrowly missed the rear of the horse box and continued to slide, somehow staying upright, and by the time it ploughed into the foliage beyond the hard shoulder it had turned a complete 180 degrees and was travelling backwards. The van was alongside us by this point, and must have been doing about 50mph at the moment of impact.
The whole thing was over so quickly and yet it happened in a kind of curious slow motion. It was incredibly cinematic, almost like watching a cinema screen, probably because it was so dramatic, so large, and so out of the ordinary. The crystal clarity of it all was surreal, and despite the fact it happened a mere 25m ahead of us we looked on with a strange sense of detachment. There wasn't even any need for me to take evasive action, even though I was ready to, the van cleanly missed us and everything else on the road to make possibly one of the softest 50mph crashes in history.
It is a fact that travelling in a car is one of the most dangerous things that most people do on a day to day basis. This isn't something that most people are inclined to believe however, probably because inside our metal boxes the danger seems so distant. Even as I watched this accident unfold and two tonnes of metal whirled across the road completely out of control in front of me I didn't feel afraid. The realisation that things could have come off much, much worse is one that's entirely rational.
Perhaps the most shocking thing that came from this whole episode, I believe, is what happened when we went to the police station to make a statement as witnesses to what had happened. We were greeted by a locked front door and a sign listing opening hours, saying that the police station was closed all day.
It seems that the police are closed on Sundays.
Monday 24 August 2009
Friday 21 August 2009
...and another thing!
Whilst I'm ranting about the RAC, I'll post another link to this.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
- Highways Agency Roads - 4.66
- Local roads - 4.23
- Heavy rail schemes - 2.83
- Light rail schemes - 2.14
- Local public transport schemes - 1.71
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
"Transport Crisis"
In the news today were reports on the publication of a report by the think tank "Reform" on the UK's transport infrastructure. Link here.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)