Sounds like socialist thinking...

Some days I feel the left, or socialists come from a different planet to the rest of us, a bit like teenagers I suppose. Other days I'm quite sure and unlike teenagers, they never seem to grow up or gain the wisdom that only age can bring (growing old disgracefully doesn't count, at least we know better) So it came as no surprise that Labours favourite think tank came up with this...
Mail.

Labour’s favourite think-tank (the Institute for Public Policy Research) has declared a new war on the motorist with draconian Big Brother pay-as-you-drive tax plans to force middle class drivers to pay more per mile to drive their cars than poorer ones.
Spy-in-the-cab black box technology would be used to track each car’s mileage by GPS satellite and to calculate the tax charge every time the driver fills up at the garage to encourage ‘behaviour change.’
It says the Government’s Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) should be linked to HM Revenue and Customs records so that drivers could be charged automatically according to their income level – with wealthier motorists paying more.

Where the hell do you start? Talk about a target rich environment...
First they assume that a spy in the cab will actually be popular, which it only would be if it reduced the cost of motoring (anyone want to take a bet on that?) rather than keep the revenue stream to the Inland revenue going.
Secondly the assumption that anyone on a higher income actually has spare cash floating around, some do, some don't yet they'd trust the taxman's data to presume that  some people should pay extra.
'Encourage behaviour change' has echoes of the old Soviet tactic of sticking you in a gulag for twenty or so years in order to encourage you to respect the state a little more. Essentially I suspect that means they want to force you out of your car (whether you need it or not) and onto public transport whether it goes to your destination or not.
Truly this stems from the politics of envy where those who have worked hard to get a good job are being penalised to provide for everyone else simply because they are doing well. Oddly enough it was Labour who introduced a graduated road tax which oddly enough penalised the less well off who drive older less efficient cars, now they are going after the better off and somehow believe they'll take the rest of us with them...
Oh the Tories took the lead for the first time in an opinion poll yesterday... can't think why.

So why do we pay road tax?

One of the biggest grouses drivers have is that the amount they pay in road tax is not the amount spent on roads and road improvements. Yes I know all tax simply goes into a giant pot and is doled out as needed (or often enough unneeded) by the government to support itself in the manner it wants to. So when select committees come out with stuff like telling the country that they need toll roads to help pay for infrastructue payments then I get irritated...
Express.

A Transport Select Committee report said investment needs to increase “substantially” during the next decade.
Traffic levels on motorways and A roads are predicted to rise 46 per cent by 2040.
MPs warned that revenue from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty is likely to drop, meaning road expenditure will “require new funding streams”.
One option would be continental-style toll charges on new roads or the use of tracking devices to charge vehicles for every mile they travel.

Actually the tracker thing is more down to the EU and trying desperately to find a way to pay for and use its costly and useless Galileo gps wannabe satelite system as the American one is in place and works better. As any tracking system used would most likely be the Galileo one by EU directive, guess why MP's are keen on road tracking as an option.
Thing is though with road toll's no one trusts the government to come up with a fair system, they proved that on the M25 Thames crossing at Dartford where the tolls were only supposed to be in place until the bridge was paid off. Naturally this was reneged upon and the tolls are still in place along with odd excuses that somehow or other the choke point caused by the toll booths was a traffic calming measure or that the funds raised would go into road improvements for the local county (they didn't) Currently they're busy removing the toll booths and fitting registration cameras for a pay by phone system, so, so much for the traffic calming measure...
Essentially the government won't use the revenue they raise from motorists to pay for new road infrastructure and improvements, they'd much prefer to grab more from motorists to directly fund them whilst pocketing the other cash they currently get for other things.
Then they wonder why we don't trust them with money.

If it sounds too good to be true...

There's an ad going the rounds on the radio I listen to at work (not by choice but I can't switch my ears off) it's called 'Drive like a girl' and is making the case that since the EU decided it was illegal for car insurers to charge less for women as they are statistically safer drivers then if you stick a little black monitoring device under the hood of your car and prove you are a safer driver then they'll give you a discount after a couple of months.
In theory it ought to be a boon to safer drivers... in theory.
Mail.

Drivers who sign up for black box car cover can be hit with a £100 fine from their insurer if they speed, a Money Mail investigation has found.
Black box technology, which monitors the safety of your driving, is supposed to be the new way to get discounts on your insurance.
Drivers are told they will be rewarded with lower premiums if they have good habits.
But people are discovering that reductions are impossible to get and are being eroded by other fees.
Sell your car, switch policy or breach the smallprint, and you could be hit with hefty penalties.
With most insurers you’ll receive warnings if you break rules such as regularly driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone. If you ignore these alerts and carry on driving poorly, the insurer can fine you on a case-by-case basis.
In some instances, Money Mail understands, the fines can be as much as £100. In the worst cases it will cancel your policy.

In other words unless you drive perfectly all the time kiss any discounts away. The damned things have even been set off by speed bumps even at ridiculously low speeds.
Nor if you're too young will they help if you have an emergency that requires you to go out at night, or indeed if you simply have to swerve out the way violently to avoid another car or heaven forfend accelerate out of trouble.
And that at the end of it is always the problem with technology that doesn't have a human check and balance. It records data, not circumstances, it doesn't understand merely reports.
As ever the reports that it could save you money are being over-exaggerated and the reality is that unless you drive perfectly (which won't save you from those who don't) you are unlikely to reap the benefits from what is essentially a spy in your cab.
What will happen is what's happening now, people will assess the risks of paying a fortune for insurance against the cost of a fine for being caught.
At the moment it's cheaper for the young to take the chance, it's not like the police are out in numbers to catch them...
What a truly awful world we've found ourselves in...

A dangerous measure

At the moment it's only in the 'could' stage, but the EU are threatening to make driving extremely dangerous for the UK.
Telegraph.

All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph. The new measures have been announced by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year.

One of the biggest dangers facing drivers who have speed limiters on their cars is that at the top speed, they cannot accelerate out of danger. There are often times when braking or remaining at the same speed will cause an accident, particularly if you're being tailgated (which still happens new law or not) Sometimes the only solution is to accelerate out of the way and get past the problem. Sure it's not all the time, but having driven a van owned by the company I work for which has a speed limiter set to 68mph I swiftly discovered that the extra burst of speed necessary to get out of the way of a problem was only available if I reduced speed to 60mph and played with the big boys (lorry drivers) and so made a nuisance of myself on the M25 by constantly weaving around trucks by accelerating and decelerating rather than deal with the nuisances in one fell swoop. Now imagine a situation where everyone was doing that on England's crowded roads where road deaths are at an all time low anyway? Indeed UK drivers are rated as the third best in Europe, after Germany (which has no speed limits on the autobahns) and Sweden, which has far fewer cars on the road.
Perhaps the EU would be better off bringing their drivers up to our standards before imposing a dangerous measure on us first.
This is however the EU we're speaking about which means that control, rather than compliance is the rule...

Unenforceable

The government it seems wishing to curry favour with motorists (whilst taxing them to penury) have turned their attention to clockers... (Centre Lane Owners Club) and the maddening driving skills of some people who deem it their god given right to get into a lane on a motorway, drive at ten miles less than the speed limit (at least) and refuse to move out of that lane come hell or high water with a line of traffic tailgating behind them.
Sounds good in theory... in practice, well lets just say that this has the possibility of getting right up a lot of motorists noses.
Telegraph.

New on-the-spot penalties for motorists who hog the middle lane, cut up other drivers or tailgate will be unenforceable with the current numbers of traffic officers, police have warned.
From today, drivers face a £100 fine for these offences as part of a package that will also see people get three points on their licence for careless driving. The fine for using a hand-held mobile while driving will increase to £100 as well.
But the Police Federation suggested the initiative by the Department for Transport (DfT) had failed to take account of the cuts to the policing budget rolled out by the Home Office. Steve White, vice-chairman of the policing body, said: “It’s all very well for the DfT to come up with these new ideas when the Home Office are at the same time cutting the number of police around the country, which means a fall in the number of traffic police.

What they are saying is basically true, at the moment once you spot a traffic cop, you know once you're out of their way you're pretty much clear till the next county. If anything like speed cameras the traffic cops themselves often cause traffic on spotting them to bunch as people slow down to check their speed, even if they are within the law.
Among the offences police are expected to focus on are:
• Driving too close to the vehicle in front
• Failing to give way at a junction (not requiring evasive action by another driver)
• Overtaking and pushing into a queue of traffic
• Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout
• Lane discipline, such as needlessly hogging the middle or outside lanes
• Inappropriate speed
• Wheel-spins, handbrake turns and other careless manoeuvres
 All of which actually require a police officer to witness said activities and as I've pointed out above, the likelihood of that is pretty low.
In other words it's bad law as it's pretty unenforceable outside the view of a policeman and is unlikely to be policed by consent as such activities as theft, violence etc where the public can and do report such matters.
Just another revenue raising activity at best...

So why do we pay Road tax?

Rhetorical question I know, I suspect we all know it's just a means to fill the governments coffers, after all if they spent all they took in on the actual roads we'd have the best transport system in the world bar none...
As it is, they keep looking for ways to dip their hands in our pockets again and again to pay for transport infrastructure, rather than taking the money from the fund that's actually supposed to pay for these things...
BBC.

A new Thames crossing could be built without spending public money, Kent County Council (KCC) says.
Paul Carter, KCC leader, said the council had been in discussions with companies in Canada over plans to build the crossing using private funding.
He said many of Canada's road were funded by income from tolls.
In 2011, the government said a new crossing would alleviate congestion at the Dartford Crossing tolls caused by "the success" of the M25.
"They do a 'fund design build and operate' scheme in Canada which has been an enormous success," Mr Carter said.

All well and good, but as I've pointed out above we already do pay 'public' money into the road fund license and that's the money which should (all) be spent on new infrastructure, rather than be pissed up the wall in MP's expenses and green lunacy with the rest of our taxes. They can't even keep their promises on the tolls they grab from other projects such as the Dartford crossing which initially was supposed to suspend tolls after the damned thing was paid for but several years after it was paid for we're still paying. Plus no-one believed the local councils claims that somehow or other they had to keep the barriers in place as a traffic calming method, nor the governments statement that the toll money would be spent in the county on other roads...
I rather suspect that the Canadian companies assuming they want to get involved with UK politics and taxation will do a reasonable job, but then as in all these schemes milk us for the rest of our lives maxing out their profits, not that I have a problem with companies making profits, I just have a problem with government both local and national pissing down my back whilst telling me that it's raining Which is exactly what this is, just another tax grab on top of the road fund license...

Ok, but how about an insurance disk instead?

The Road Tax Fund which is neither a fund nor which the amount collected goes mostly towards our roads is a bit of a contentious issue, drivers are expected to purchase one and many were in the mistaken belief that it paid for our road network, that was until the government started making noises about toll roads and other revenue raising cons to keep the state spending going.
Still someone has now said that we should just scrap the paper disk because the police know instantly whether or not a scanned car has one or not...
Mail.

The car tax disc which has adorned windscreens for more than 90 years could be due for the axe.
Ministers say scrapping the paper discs would cut costs and streamline services to motorists.
They are currently displayed on around 36million vehicles as proof that road tax has been paid.
However, the discs could become the latest victim of the digital revolution.
Officials say that because police can tell instantly from access to the DVLA computer whether a car has been taxed or not, there is no longer a need for proof on the windscreen.
Even tax disc reminders may soon come as emails or texts rather than paperwork through the post.
The paper element of the driving licence – which accompanies the credit card size photo-card – is also due for the chop by 2015.

All well and good, I'm (sort of) in favour of the state saving money as and where they can, though I rather doubt that they'll use any saving to refund taxation for the rest of us, the money will no doubt go to other important places such as India or Africa...
No the biggest cost facing motorists today is insurance, through expensive repairs and through many uninsured drivers out there having accidents and bumping up the cost to the rest of us. Not that I don't have some sympathy for them, after all having seen the prices my stepdaughter was quoted for her insurance I'm amazed anyone would want to be paying out such amounts.
What is happening is the great liberator of the working class (easy and cheap movement) is now being priced way out of their league tying them once again to fixed areas for work (and low wages) Naturally when faced with a massive price for simply owning a car (which may not even be worth the insurance) some people decide to take a chance as the fine for not having insurance is less than the cost of the insurance itself.
So it strikes me that the insurance companies could have been made responsible for some form of disk on a car which says it's insured.
Then again, I doubt prices would come down, so perhaps it's not such a good idea after all, rip off Britain is still rip off Britain...

Not terribly comforting

On the day most of the UK heaves a sigh of relief at the extradition of hooky Hamza it comes as no real surprise that one of the very things the U.S. intends to question him about should wander blinking into the light of day...
BBC.

An airline security worker has been suspended after failing to spot a fake bomb as it passed through the X ray machine.
Manchester Airport said it had launched an investigation into the incident.
The Department of Transport carries out regular dummy runs at UK airports to ensure security is up to scratch.
A spokesman for the airport said: "We can confirm a security officer has been suspended but we cannot comment further as there is an ongoing investigation."
The Department of Transport spokesman said it conducts regular airport tests but could not comment further.
The spokesman said: "The safety of the travelling public is paramount, which is why the UK combines intelligence, technology and other measures to provide one of the strictest regimes for aviation security in the world.

One does wonder if the thing was a metal box with a few wires and 'bomb' written on it as I suspect a really professional terrorist would take greater pains to disguise an 'obvious' bomb. That's by the by though, we do to an extent rely on these guys as a means of last resort for boarding onto planes and put up with a lot of crap from them as a result. Mostly from what I can tell a lot of these terrorist plans are nipped in the bud by good intelligence and it's only the new or the random that gets through to cause us grief, though mistakes as in the 7/7 tube and bus bombings can be made too, not that those guys went through airport security of course.
Still you'd expect that at least the guys on the security desks would have a clue and are (hopefully) not minimum wage drones from Afghanistan with an axe to grind. However I don't know what kind of training these guys have and what they are supposed to look for, but it's not exactly comforting to know that in a test the buggers didn't find it.

It's only money...

Oh joy, the west Coast rail fiasco rumbles on with the government finally holding its hands up to admit mistakes were made, currently £40 to £50 millions worth at the latest estimates, all coming from a taxpayers purse near you with menaces any day soon.
Telegraph.

In a dramatic move on Tuesday night, the Department for Transport cancelled FirstGroup's contract to run the West Coast main line due to "significant technical flaws" in the bidding process, which will be re-run.
The Department for Transport's decision came just a day before Virgin's High Court legal challenge over the decision to award the contract to FirstGroup was due to start.
Virgin Trains lost control of the prestigious West Coast rail line in August, with the contract being handed to FirstGroup after Virgin's rival made an offer of £5.5bn to run the line for the next 13 years.
The decision provoked fury from Sir Richard Branson, the entrepreneur behind Virgin Trains, who launched a judicial review of the process and voiced fears that the amount paid by FirstGroup will have made the contract unprofitable.
Mr McLoughlin (Transport Secretary) admitted that the cost of cancelling the contract would be around £40m. He added that three other ongoing franchise processes - the Great Western, Essex Thameside and Thameslink competitions - have been paused.

But hey, never mind it's only money and plenty more where that came from and as for heads rolling? Don't make me laugh, the only people who will be hurting over this will be the ones whose money pays for the mistake, essentially you and I.
You'd think by now Westminster would have got the hang of major infrastructure and transport funding by now, though I suppose a lack of experience in the real world is a major handicap. Still when checking out a bid, it's always best to understand what the rules are and also making sure that the end result is actually viable, which seems to be the major problem here.
So, now we'll have a new bidding process and new costs, probably done by the same people who mucked up the original process.
Why do I think that taking it out of their wages might just be a fair and just solution? After all, if they knew that it would be coming out of their pockets in a blunder, they'd be a hell of a lot more careful.
Just saying.

Progress

Progress takes many forms and often leaves  certain groups of workers behind in its wake. That's often why a flexible attitude in the jobs market will help, after all these days there's not much call for blacksmiths, steam train drivers, Roman legionaries etc save in very small specific areas of hobbies or pastimes.
BBC.

Tube workers are to be balloted for strikes in protest at plans to test driverless trains.
Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT) members will vote on industrial action ahead of preparations to test trains without drivers.
The union said it would initially ballot its members who are set to take part in the trials.
Transport for London (TfL) said any call for action at this stage was "ludicrous".
London Mayor Boris Johnson said during his election campaign driverless trains would be operational within a decade.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "RMT reiterates this union's complete opposition to driverless trains. Every train must have a driver to ensure the safe and effective running of the Underground.

Now I don't know how the public will react to driverless trains, they may not be too keen on the idea. After all the thought that there's at least a last resort of a guy on the brakes is quite comforting. That said it has to be put in the same consideration of a union who appear to be willing to strike at the drop of a hat and get paid well above the national average with less working hours per man than than the average commuter.
Perhaps the unions have (as ever) priced themselves out of the market and technology is ready to take their place. Wouldn't be the first time after all, look at Wapping and the print unions, they got greedy and paid the price. Same can be said about the RMT, they have got greedy, called strikes at the drop of a hat, held TfL to ransom over the Olympics and now look as if they are about to find out the cost of the ultimate freedom, that of taking the consequences for your actions.
I guess in the end it depends on whether the price will come down, the system keeps running and that people are happy with unmanned trains.
I do know it was bound to happen though, the actions of the RMT made it inevitable...

Someone gets it...

There's a report out detailing the fact that UK drivers spend £8 billion a year on parking charges. Which I suppose id fair enough, though it does go on to make the point that excessive parking charges are causing some town centres to die from lack of custom...
Sky.

Britons are now spending nearly £8bn a year to park their cars with prices rising 12% last year.
The rising costs are deterring shoppers from visiting town centres, according to a survey by car insurance company Confused.com.
The most expensive parking is in Knightsbridge in central London, where motorists can be charged up to £36 for three hours.
The survey of 2,000 people found 69% intentionally avoided shopping areas with high parking prices.
As many as 65% said they would return to the high street if parking was more affordable, while 21% believe current parking services do not offer enough space.
A total of 60% of motorists spend between six and 20 minutes every trip searching for a parking space, with 30% confessing to not feeling safe in car parks.
Nearly a quarter (24%) have been involved in a car park argument, with 11% of the altercations boiling over into physical violence.

I've never been involved in any violence in Car parks, though I've often been a bit exasperated at the antics of people parking without care for others. But as this report suggests, I do avoid going places where I believe I'm being ripped off by whoever is charging me to park which means many town centres particularly the multistories. If I have to go into London, I'll take a train, it would possibly be cheaper to park, but there aren't many long term parks near where I have to go and I can't be arsed to constantly move the car every couple of hours. My local town centre is still fairly cheap to park in, so it gets my custom as and when I can be bothered to go shopping as I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the internet is my friend for a lot of goods and services anyway.
You'd think common sense would apply when trying to get people in to an area to shop in that you make it easy for them to get in and park and don't charge them too much to do so, after all that's part of the 'secret' of out of town shopping. But no, councils hive off their parking to private companies then watch in astonishment as these companies try to recoup their costs by ripping off the motorists and making said motorists look elsewhere.
Personally I think that the day of high street shopping is over, the councils and others priced themselves out of the market. Some areas will of course survive if they offer added value, but most retailers will opt for soulless out of town big name slots or start selling online.
But on this and so many other things politicians local and national get involved with, they only have themselves to blame.

Ongoing theft

The Dartford crossing of the M25 was paid for a number of years ago, when it was, the tolls were supposed to end, it being a Labour government, of course they didn't. Promises were made to use the tolls to pay for other road improvements in Kent and Essex, this being a Labour government, of course they didn't, they even came up with the ludicrous excuse that somehow or other the tolls and the collection booths were some sort of traffic calming method, this despite the booths contributing to massive delays at peak periods and often enough through the day. Now the prices are going up again and lo and behold they have a new surprise for us too...
BBC.

An increase in road toll charges at the river crossing between Kent and Essex, which were announced earlier this year, will take effect from Sunday 7 October.
From 06:00 BST, drivers of cars and 2 axle goods vehicles will pay 50p more to use the Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
Heavy goods vehicles will cost an extra £1.30, while the crossing will remain free for motorcyclists.
Discounts will continue for local residents and DART-Tag account holders who pay in advance.
Any vehicle using the crossing between 22:00 and 06:00 will continue to do so for free.
Cash payments at the crossing will increase from £1.50 to £2.00 for cars, from £2.00 to £2.50 for 2 axle goods vehicles, and from £3.70 to £5.00 for heavy goods vehicles.
Electronic charging, which means vehicles will not have to stop, will be introduced in 2014, when the charge for cars will rise to £2.50. Drivers of 2 axle goods vehicles will also have to pay £3.00, and £6.00 for heavy goods vehicles.

Proof if ever it were needed that they're simply after our money and that traffic calming was simply a lie to fob us off with, after all if we don't have to stop, where's the calming effect?
Nor can I believe the gall of the rest of the article in which the minister says the charges will be used to pay for other infrastructure improvements, after all, isn't that what the road tax fund was supposed to be for? (I know, I know, it's never been used for that, but the point remains, motorists are being used as a cash cow by the government)
Where is there a political party determined to reduce taxation (of all kinds) to reduce the size (and power) of the state and who will bring honesty (for a given value of honesty I know) back into Westminster?
We certainly need one...

Moneygrabbing

Local councils are up to their old tricks again. Despite the government telling them to reduce costs and help the residents, they simply look for new ways to keep their income rising and as ever have chosen to go after motorists, an easy law abiding target.
Telegraph.

Councils have lobbied the Government for the right to fine drivers who make illegal turns, encroach on yellow boxes or drive in bus and cycle lanes.
Ministers indicated they were “sympathetic” to the plans amid growing concerns from motoring groups that councils would use them as a “cash cow”. The Coalition had promised to end the “war on motorists” when it came to power.
Local authorities already have the power to fine motorists for parking illegally. However, they now want the same powers as authorities in London to fine motorists for other offences.
It is understood the Department for Transport has been in discussions with 20 councils about giving them the new powers. They include Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, Reading, Salford, Sheffield and Southampton.

The motoring organisations are correct, politicians in general see the motorist as a cash cow and seem to seek out ever new methods of driving them off the road. Nor do the claims of using public transport being a better option work either. It's either inconvenient or far too costly. A return bus ticket to Chatham from where I live would cost over a fiver. I can do the journey in by car far cheaper, including parking fees and that's simply me alone, it becomes even cheaper if my good Lady comes with me. Nor would it be suitable for work, there are no trains or buses that could get me to my place of work in time for my morning shifts starting, nor is using a bike an option either, 12 hour shifts and a one hour travel time by bike means I couldn't be arsed to even try.
But now if going to a big city I'll have to watch out for various other traps to fleece me of my hard earned cash. I doubt they're all Labour, but I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of them will be.
I just wish they'd get away from the idea that my pockets are bottomless and that they need to keep raising revenue.
Hanging them all from lampposts cannot it seems come too soon.

For every action...

There is an equal and opposite reaction as the saying goes, it's as true in physics as it is in life. You'd have thought that unions having (supposedly) learnt the lessons of the Thatcher years when they went to excess in attempting to disrupt the nation would at least bear this in mind against pushing too hard...
Telegraph.

New driver-less Tube trains will lead to cheaper tickets and challenge the power of “hardline union bosses” , Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, will say today.
Ahead of the mayoral election in May, Mr Johnson will pledge never again to buy a tube train with an old-fashioned driver’s cab as long as he is in charge of the city.
Londoners have been plagued by 23 tube strikes over the last four years Mr Johnson has been in office, as drivers demand better pay and conditions.
In a speech on his campaign trail, Mr Johnson will ask residents for “new mandate to automate the tube network”.
He believes half of London’s line can be automatic within two years, with drivers replaced by “train captains” in charge of supervising the trains.
“It is time to move forward with ‘train captains’ with all the efficiency benefits at will bring, and absolutely no loss of safety,” he will say.

Now I expect the unions will fight this, I expect the grounds to be health and safety and they might have a point. After all there will be circumstances in which a machine just will not be programmed to cope and it might just do the wrong thing and at tube speeds carrying passengers that's a risk. However after 23 strikes taking their wages up to just under £50,000 plus blackmailing holding transport for London to ransom over Olympic (nice games, shame if a transport strike were to happen in the middle of them) what did they think TfL would do? Though knowing the likes of the transport union leaders, the chances are they never gave it much thought. However they've managed to push the likelihood of having some of their members replaced by a computer chip that much closer to reality whilst alienating the general public over the years getting there. Fact is, they're the ones who have brought this upon themselves because it's now cheaper to replace them than keep them on, they really should have learned by the example of the once powerful miners union.

The Mayor will also promise to lobby the Government for changes to national strike law, so that industrial action “can no longer be triggered by a small minority of union members”.
The RMT union has described driverless trains as “lethal and unworkable”, while Aslef, Britain’s biggest drivers’ union, has said it would “vigorously” fight any attempts to eliminate the need for drivers.

It was Thatcher who said that socialism works fine till someone else's money runs out, well Aslef and the RMT are discovering what happens when you price yourself out of the market, sooner or later people either stop using your product or they'll find a cheaper replacement. They've brought this upon themselves and if it works, they wont be missed.

Trusting technology

As an engineer I have a healthy respect for technology coupled with a great deal of cynicism with regard to what it can do and where it can go wrong. Take satnavs for instance, great if they work, but there are a worrying number of cases where people have been killed or injured by following the instructions given to the letter and ended up driving down the wrong way on a dual carriageway. Use of common (or what seems to be not so common) sense is a requirement. If anything they just increase the probability of someone getting it wrong, though a lot of people don't really need technology to help with that when out driving.
Express.

MOTORISTS are turning back to traditional maps because satnavs are so unreliable.
A third say they have become lost while using a satnav and no longer trust them to help get them to their destination.
And 81 per cent in a survey said they preferred to find their own way, if necessary using traditional maps, rather than rely on the hi-tech navigation gadgets.
They also said they became frustrated over the complexity of satnavs and preferred to listen to music or the radio rather than to their satnav’s voice instructions.
Many also complained they do not always find the most direct route.
Research by Kia Motors found that around four in 10 drivers will clock up an additional four hours of driving to visit relatives over the festive season.
But only 21 per cent said they would not need help with directions to get them to their destination.

Speaking as someone who drove all over the South-East in a previous job without the aid of a satnav and just a series of A to Z's roadmaps I can see their point, though reading one whilst on the move is not recommended. Any technology is only as good as its programming and many peoples idea of what's best or what works doesn't seem to quite fit in with what the satnav programmer's ideas are, that's of course assuming they have the right data programmed in the device in the first place, I passed a turn off up near the Scottish Border which has a hand made sign stating that they live on a private no-through road no matter what your satnav says. Nor will the same program be suitable for cars and lorries as many a trucker stuck under a low bridge will tell you.
Guess I'm just old fashioned, I like to plan my route out in advance using a map book and/or an online aid, I still don't trust technology to run my life, for all I use and fix it when at work. I doubt I'll ever get a satnav, I don't enjoy prattle when driving, the exception being my good Lady and I doubt she'd care for me calling her conversations prattle either. It comes down to trust in the end, I don't trust satnavs as useful as they might be, simply because the roads and conditions change and I'm damned if I'll let a machine tell me what to do, hence also my disdain for auto exchanges when dialing a company, I prefer to deal with people.
A lot of engineers are like me, perhaps it's because they deal with machines and technology day in day out.

Missing the point.

I don't know who Michael Deacon is, but he has an article in the Telegraph claiming that fewer young people drive these days because of road ragers, sadly he's completely missing the point.
Telegraph.

I don’t drive. Be grateful. Keeping me off the road is in the public interest. My mind wanders with dangerous ease. I can barely mow the lawn without drifting into a long and peaceful daydream, rousing only to find myself inexplicably at the heart of a pile-up on the A2.
But it seems that, statistically at any rate, I’m not unusual. In Britain, the number of young people who can drive is falling. Twenty years ago, 48 per cent of those aged 17-20 could drive. Now, it’s 35 per cent. And it isn’t just teenagers who aren’t taking the test. Most of my friends are around 30, and few drive.
Some motoring experts think it’s because today’s young are interested only in gadgets, and don’t find cars sexy. Also, driving looks costly to a generation struggling for jobs. But there’s a bigger reason.
The problem with driving is drivers. Not you, dear reader, obviously – your three-point turns are vehicular ballet. It’s the rest of them. As roads have become busier, and our society more self-centred, drivers have become more volatile. And a ton of speeding metal is a lot with which to entrust an angry idiot. Today, even being a passenger is stressful. Although trains can be unreliable, they rarely get cut up on wet motorways, or honked at impatiently by another train travelling three inches behind them. And I can count on no hands the number of times I’ve seen a train driver mouthing curses at a fellow train driver while attempting to run him into a bollard.
In short, our roads would be lovely places to drive if only people didn’t keep driving on them. I’m doing my bit to make that dream real.

There may be a few young people put off driving by other angry drivers, but the real reason a lot of young people don't learn to drive is cost. Driving lessons alone typically cost from £22 to £30 depending on where you are in the country and sometimes more and is a massive chunk out of any young persons budget. The car itself though is rarely a problem, but fuel (not cheap) insurance (horrendous for inexperienced drivers) Tax (assuming they bother) and spares/servicing (if done at all) all make owning a car ridiculously expensive after getting through the test. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Michael Deacon's admission that he and his (probably) well paid friends are wusses when it comes to driving is valid enough, but for most of the young people I know, it's simply not an affordable option at the stage of life they are at. It's certainly out of the reach of most of the ones on jobseekers that I know..
My step-daughter is learning to drive though, which is how I know a little about the costs, she's not put off by aggressive drivers, she's not put off by the cost either, though it isn't easy for her, it's something she wants to do and thinks it will be of benefit to her (and her daughter) the one thing that is putting her off though is the insurance costs, but she'll find a way to deal with them too, she's that determined. So in this instance Michael Deacon is wrong, people who want to learn to drive are being put off by the cost of doing so, not by what other motorists do,  if they had the money, more of them would, it's really that simple.

Someone gets it...

I have to go into darkest Essex tonight to visit relatives of Lady QM, it's always a good visit as they really look after us very well food and drink wise as well as enjoying long country walks which we appreciate all to well. Yet to get there we have to cross over the Dartford toll crossing on the M25 which has to be the biggest bottleneck on a main transport route ever devised, so much so that some people who ought to know better claim it as a traffic calming measure yet all it does is create a bottleneck for motorists going North or South across the river. This along with the current road widening going on in Essex on the M25 means that in future, it's only going to get worse.
BBC.

Tolls on the Dartford Crossing should be scrapped to help boost the local economy, a group representing public bodies and businesses has said.

The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (Selep) said charges "can have devastating effects on business."

The Department for Transport (DfT) wants to increase car tolls from £1.50 to £2 in November and £2.50 in 2012.

The crossing comprises a dual tunnel northbound and bridge southbound, linking Essex and Kent.

The local enterprise partnerships were set up to stimulate economic growth, replacing the publicly-funded regional development agencies.

George Kieffer, who chairs Selep, said: "It is not rocket science to see the toll booths act as a major traffic bottleneck which can have a huge knock on effect for the surrounding road network.

Yep, it might not be rocket science, but prising £40 million quid from the hands of politicians/ministries is never going to be easy. To them, it's all about the money, not the problems caused, after all the crossing was paid off years ago and the government reneged on the promise to scrap the tolls once it was paid. So somehow or other I cannot see Selep's call to have them scrapped falling on fertile ground.
Still it's nice to know that my opinions and others are being echoed by others with more clout than I have, though sadly I fear with the same result of being ignored by those who prefer a revenue stream to free flowing traffic.

Feeling an "I told you so" moment coming on

I've occasionally had a go at speed cameras and their supporters who often referred to them as safety cameras despite the lack of any evidence they made roads safer.
Telegraph.

According to the latest statistics released by the Department for Transport fatalities dropped by 10 per cent, falling to 1,870 for the 12 months ending in March.

Over the same period the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 24,770, a decline of five per cent.

This coincided with an even more dramatic 35 per cent reduction in people killed in drink-drive accidents, with 250 deaths last year compared with 380 in 2009.

The apparent improvement in road safety will hearten ministers, who had been under attack for withdrawing funding from speed cameras and also slashing the amount spent on anti-drink drive campaigns.

Spending cuts over the past year have seen cameras switched off across the country as safety police and councils have seen their budgets squeezed.

Now amidst the disclaimers by various group like "Brake" who cannot understand why their precious cameras have to go despite the road safety figures the fact remains that it is a combination of things that prevent accidents of which often enough speed plays little part. Nor have any speed cameras caught drivers tailgating, driving recklessly, driving whilst drunk or any other manner of issues which have been known to cause accidents. No, despite the claims that the cameras were there for our safety they were really there to raise revenue and the minute they failed to do that by government grant they went.
It's nice to be proven right after all these years, just a shame about all the bloody money wasted on the damn things.

39 not out

I have to renew my driving license next month, the picture is 10 years out of date, though everything else remains the same. I'm one of those oddities with a clean current driving license having avoided (off times by luck) various speed traps, entrapment and sometimes weird stop and enquire attempts by the various local constabularies I travel through. I was stopped last year as they thought I was using my mobile phone whilst driving, I wasn't, I was just leaning on my arm bored and stuck in traffic, my phone where it normally is, in my pocket irradiating my gonads. No, I'm not making myself out to be a super driver either, I've just been lucky. Still I knew (or thought I knew) that if I got up to 12 points on my license, I would face a ban save only in the most unusual of circumstances and I would certainly have thought if I offended again I would certainly face a ban and of course I would have been wrong.

BBC.

A Swindon motorist has 39 penalty points on his or her licence - the most in Great Britain - but not been banned.

A Freedom of Information request to the DVLA showed 638 drivers in Bristol, Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire have 12 or more points.

Twelve points usually means a temporary ban for a driver unless they can prove it would cause exceptional hardship.

A court decides if a driver is banned and the Magistrates' Association agreed the Swindon case needs investigating.

The DVLA's response to the Freedom of Information (FOI), from BBC West, did not say which offences the penalty points related to and gave no further information about the driver from Swindon.

It explained that although it compiles the figures on court cases involving driving offences it has no influence on verdicts.

39 points, something we mere mortals would not believe possible, believing despite growing evidence that our justice system is far from fair and professional. But seriously, 39 POINTS! Didn't someone in the system notice the steady climb and decide to nip it in the bud? The person involved is still driving too, I wonder if they'll make it to 42+ points before being stopped from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. Ok, the reasons may be trivial, I can accept that, a few miles over the limit in some cases perhaps, but sooner or later you'd think your luck would run out, exceptional hardship or not.
Yes, I know in a libertarian society speed limits would be advisory, safe driving under the conditions mandatory and the sooner the government stops picking on the motorists the better. I can agree with all that, I just can't agree with anyone abusing the system as is, be it the driver or the judge. I know I wouldn't get away with it, I doubt any of us would get away with it, why should they.

A never ending spiral

What is it about governments that they can only see tax rises as a solution to the rising cost of running the state rather than tax cuts to stimulate an economy? I suppose in one sense they are a bit leery of the public service unions throwing a kiddy tantrum and stopping vital services, though what's so vital about a lot of public services escapes most people, I doubt we'd even notice a strike by diversity co-ordinators after all is said and done, though I doubt they'll be the ones in the firing line, more likely it will be something a bit more irritating to the public though I'm damned if I know what or who.
Rising costs caused by tax or duty increases inevitably filter down to the public and non so quick as fuel duty...

Express.

FURIOUS motorists could set up crippling blockades over the soaring cost of ­petrol with prices set to hit £1.40 a litre, campaigners warned last night.

Professional and private drivers are facing huge rises in costs with duty and VAT increases adding 3.5p to the cost of a litre on unleaded over the next few days.

And experts warned that rocketing costs of crude oil, plus further tax rises could force prices even higher.

Yesterday, pump prices at many service stations across the country had soared above 130p a litre for petrol and over 135p for diesel.

David Handley, from Wales, one of the leaders of the 2000 lorry blockades which caused panic buying, said a protest was “on the radar”.

He said hauliers, farmers and other groups had been in discussions for “several months” about ways to ­revive their protests.

Hugh Bladon, of the Association of British Drivers, said: “We’re coming close to having some real civil unrest because of these rises.

“If haulage companies delivering goods to the shops are being drained of money by fuel costs, it filters down and the cost of living soars – it affects everyone.

“It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we saw more fuel ­blockades, and we would be sympathetic to the hauliers.

“There’s a limit to how much hauliers and motorists will take.”

One Leicestershire farmer, who asked not to be named, said: “There is definitely an appetite for a protest on a big scale. We need to make our voices heard.” On New Year’s Day, fuel duty rose by 0.76p a litre, while tomorrow VAT will go up from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent.

It is expected to add about 3.5p to the cost of a litre of unleaded, which had already hit a record high by the end of 2010. A further planned duty increase in April will add another 4p to a litre.

This is without any rise in the price of a barrel of oil either, fuel is a cash cow for the government, they've even put a green levy on the stuff officially to try and stop us  using uneconomic vehicles and methods of combustion, but in reality it's just another revenue raiser. But fuel is used to transport goods around the country so expect to see food and other prices rise too, then expect to see wage demands rise as people find that what used to last the month comfortably now just squeaks them through assuming they are lucky. Expect to find the demand for certain items nose dive and businesses start to go to the wall as people stop buying extras to their lifestyle. The high street already struggling with parking charges and out of town shopping could well be killed off altogether as they can't compete and no one can afford what they are selling. Taxi, train and bus fares will rise too, so getting about without your own transport becomes more and more prohibitive. The job you have which starts at an hour when there is no public transport for all it used to pay well now is a millstone of transport cost for you and you struggle to be able to afford to work there, never mind wonder why you took out a loan for a new(er) car. You here very desperate vehicle manufacturers claim magical fuel economy figures on new models which no-one can really afford any more. So unemployment starts to rise in the private sector as the public sector is cushioned somewhat by unrealistic pay rises again fuelled by increases in local taxes that no-one can afford so easily.
Yet it would be so easy to stop in its tracks, cut the state, cut the excess from the state like the private sector has done, channel the savings into a reduction in taxes and duty. Give tax allowances to private companies who create new jobs in the UK, not transferring jobs around the UK make the UK a good place to run an international business from, even if it's just an office, it will create jobs.
No, I know it's not as simple as I make out, but it is possible and it ought to be necessary, but I suspect it will take rioting in the streets and a march on the political classes leafy suburbs before they realise that it could be their necks in the noose if they don't reduce the cost of government. It's amazing how the thought of being hung can focus the mind after all.