Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Restaurant damaged by car.
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Guy Cuthbertson on 20 May 2010 02:00 Good news and high time. Although can anyone explain how the war on motorists can be ended when there was no war on motorists in the first place? Oh no, hang on, that was just a farcical claim made by some of the more dishonest car-hating nutters on URC(M). What a pity that no- one has ever fallen for it. You'd have to be pretty gullible to really believe that some of the speed limits, cameras and "road improvements" you see these days are there to "improve safety" or do anything else but make driving unpleasant. Nice to see that this government is (for the moment at least) doing what the people want. I'd say that far fewer than 5% of people have ever wanted a war on the motorist, which just goes to show what a paternalistic, authoritarian, socialist, "we know best" attitude Labour had. I'm not expecting miracles from this lot but saying the below is a start, and Labour never would have done so. Whatever the nutters may want, the vast majority of people want to drive cars without the authorities making it deliberately difficult for them, so that is what should happen in a democracy, end of. It's time the car-haters accepted that spitefully obstructing people just for choosing a perfectly legitimate, legal mode of transport which may well be the only practical one is totally and utterly out of order. If they want people to switch to public transport then make it more attractive and sell the benefits to people. Attempting to bully people out of their cars has never worked and it never will, however much smug, twisted satisfaction it may give the nutters to see so many petty, ludicrous restrictions on motorists. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7721591/Coalition-government- Transport-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-ends-Labours-war-on-motorists.html Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists' Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, has declared an end to the ?war on motorists?. Within hours of taking on the portfolio, he confirmed that the new administration would bring in a ?fuel price stabiliser? that would lead to taxes being reduced if the price of oil rose sharply. However, fuel duties would rise if the cost of petrol and diesel fell. ?We will end the war on motorists,? said Mr Hammond. ?Motoring has got to get greener but the car is not going to go away.? He accused Labour of having targeted motorists with a series of increases in fuel duty and of pushing up the price of cars by linking the cost of the tax disc to a vehicle?s carbon emissions. Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, also confirmed a manifesto pledge that there would be no Whitehall cash for new speed cameras. He said road safety partnerships would have to pay for new devices out of their own funds, even though the Treasury would still pocket the fines. He sought to enhance the Government?s motorist-friendly credentials by pressing ahead with plans to curb rogue private clamping firms. He also ruled out introducing road pricing, which the Liberal Democrats had supported in their manifesto. Tolls may be introduced on new roads but charges would not be levied on existing motorways, even where they had been widened. It was likely that new roads would be built by private companies, with Mr Hammond saying that the Government would look for other sources of funds for major projects ? possibly including high-speed rail. ?We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure,? he said. However, Mr Hammond?s remarks were given a cautious welcome by Edmund King, the AA?s president. With the Government planning spending cuts and the Liberal Democrats wanting to cut the roads budget, Mr King voiced fears that the Government?s truce may be short-lived. ?While the Transport Secretary?s comments are welcome, I am worried that cutting back on road expenditure will leave drivers facing more congestion and more potholes,? he said. ?We are worried over the revolving door that has seen 13 transport secretaries in 22 years, meaning they have served an average of 20 months each. ?If we are having a fixed-term government, why can?t we have a fixed- term transport secretary who can get to grips with the brief??
From: Derek C on 20 May 2010 04:04 On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: > Good news and high time. Although can anyone explain how the war on > motorists can be ended when there was no war on motorists in the first > place? Oh no, hang on, that was just a farcical claim made by some of > the more dishonest car-hating nutters on URC(M). What a pity that no- > one has ever fallen for it. You'd have to be pretty gullible to really > believe that some of the speed limits, cameras and "road improvements" > you see these days are there to "improve safety" or do anything else but > make driving unpleasant. > > Nice to see that this government is (for the moment at least) doing what > the people want. I'd say that far fewer than 5% of people have ever > wanted a war on the motorist, which just goes to show what a > paternalistic, authoritarian, socialist, "we know best" attitude Labour > had. I'm not expecting miracles from this lot but saying the below is a > start, and Labour never would have done so. Whatever the nutters may > want, the vast majority of people want to drive cars without the > authorities making it deliberately difficult for them, so that is what > should happen in a democracy, end of. > > It's time the car-haters accepted that spitefully obstructing people > just for choosing a perfectly legitimate, legal mode of transport which > may well be the only practical one is totally and utterly out of order. > If they want people to switch to public transport then make it more > attractive and sell the benefits to people. Attempting to bully people > out of their cars has never worked and it never will, however much smug, > twisted satisfaction it may give the nutters to see so many petty, > ludicrous restrictions on motorists. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7721591/Coalition-government- > Transport-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-ends-Labours-war-on-motorists.html > > Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's > 'war on motorists' > > Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, has declared an end to the ?war > on motorists?. > > Within hours of taking on the portfolio, he confirmed that the new > administration would bring in a ?fuel price stabiliser? that would lead > to taxes being reduced if the price of oil rose sharply. However, fuel > duties would rise if the cost of petrol and diesel fell. > > ?We will end the war on motorists,? said Mr Hammond. ?Motoring has got > to get greener but the car is not going to go away.? > > He accused Labour of having targeted motorists with a series of > increases in fuel duty and of pushing up the price of cars by linking > the cost of the tax disc to a vehicle?s carbon emissions. > > Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, also confirmed a manifesto pledge that > there would be no Whitehall cash for new speed cameras. He said road > safety partnerships would have to pay for new devices out of their own > funds, even though the Treasury would still pocket the fines. > > He sought to enhance the Government?s motorist-friendly credentials by > pressing ahead with plans to curb rogue private clamping firms. > > He also ruled out introducing road pricing, which the Liberal Democrats > had supported in their manifesto. Tolls may be introduced on new roads > but charges would not be levied on existing motorways, even where they > had been widened. > > It was likely that new roads would be built by private companies, with > Mr Hammond saying that the Government would look for other sources of > funds for major projects ? possibly including high-speed rail. > > ?We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding > capital expenditure,? he said. > > However, Mr Hammond?s remarks were given a cautious welcome by Edmund > King, the AA?s president. With the Government planning spending cuts and > the Liberal Democrats wanting to cut the roads budget, Mr King voiced > fears that the Government?s truce may be short-lived. > > ?While the Transport Secretary?s comments are welcome, I am worried that > cutting back on road expenditure will leave drivers facing more > congestion and more potholes,? he said. > > ?We are worried over the revolving door that has seen 13 transport > secretaries in 22 years, meaning they have served an average of 20 > months each. > > ?If we are having a fixed-term government, why can?t we have a fixed- > term transport secretary who can get to grips with the brief?? The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple. Railways, buses and other form of public transport are highly unionised and the trade unions are their major source of income. Also they still live in a time warp dating back to the early part of the twentieth century, when only rich toffs drove cars. The proleteriat rode bikes, used buses or travelled 3rd class on railways. Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now drive around in cars, because this is the most practical way of getting around and doing your shopping, now little local corner shops have mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town supermarkets. Derek C
From: JNugent on 20 May 2010 05:21 Derek C wrote: [snip] > The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple. Railways, > buses and other form of public transport are highly unionised and the > trade unions are their major source of income. Also they still live in > a time warp dating back to the early part of the twentieth century, > when only rich toffs drove cars. The proleteriat rode bikes, used > buses or travelled 3rd class on railways. It's part of the answer, but not all of it. The further answer is that Labour has always been wedded to quasi-religious views of the world, with pat faux-rationalisations and prescriptions for every social phenomenon. You can see the advantage. Once formulated, the "catechism" can easily be imparted to the ultra-faithful (councillors, senior officer of councils, etc) and disseminated to the more docile sections of the population who prefer to let Labour do their thinking for them. The 'Boxer' effect... > Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion > accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now drive > around in cars, because this is the most practical way of getting > around and doing your shopping, now little local corner shops have > mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town supermarkets... ....though only because they are an improvement on the corner shop (something a true believer absolutely *will not* hear).
From: Jethro on 20 May 2010 06:47 On 20 May, 09:04, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Good news and high time. Although can anyone explain how the war on > > motorists can be ended when there was no war on motorists in the first > > place? Oh no, hang on, that was just a farcical claim made by some of > > the more dishonest car-hating nutters on URC(M). What a pity that no- > > one has ever fallen for it. You'd have to be pretty gullible to really > > believe that some of the speed limits, cameras and "road improvements" > > you see these days are there to "improve safety" or do anything else but > > make driving unpleasant. > > > Nice to see that this government is (for the moment at least) doing what > > the people want. I'd say that far fewer than 5% of people have ever > > wanted a war on the motorist, which just goes to show what a > > paternalistic, authoritarian, socialist, "we know best" attitude Labour > > had. I'm not expecting miracles from this lot but saying the below is a > > start, and Labour never would have done so. Whatever the nutters may > > want, the vast majority of people want to drive cars without the > > authorities making it deliberately difficult for them, so that is what > > should happen in a democracy, end of. > > > It's time the car-haters accepted that spitefully obstructing people > > just for choosing a perfectly legitimate, legal mode of transport which > > may well be the only practical one is totally and utterly out of order. > > If they want people to switch to public transport then make it more > > attractive and sell the benefits to people. Attempting to bully people > > out of their cars has never worked and it never will, however much smug, > > twisted satisfaction it may give the nutters to see so many petty, > > ludicrous restrictions on motorists. > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7721591/Coalition-government- > > Transport-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-ends-Labours-war-on-motorists.html > > > Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's > > 'war on motorists' > > > Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, has declared an end to the ?war > > on motorists?. > > > Within hours of taking on the portfolio, he confirmed that the new > > administration would bring in a ?fuel price stabiliser? that would lead > > to taxes being reduced if the price of oil rose sharply. However, fuel > > duties would rise if the cost of petrol and diesel fell. > > > ?We will end the war on motorists,? said Mr Hammond. ?Motoring has got > > to get greener but the car is not going to go away.? > > > He accused Labour of having targeted motorists with a series of > > increases in fuel duty and of pushing up the price of cars by linking > > the cost of the tax disc to a vehicle?s carbon emissions. > > > Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, also confirmed a manifesto pledge that > > there would be no Whitehall cash for new speed cameras. He said road > > safety partnerships would have to pay for new devices out of their own > > funds, even though the Treasury would still pocket the fines. > > > He sought to enhance the Government?s motorist-friendly credentials by > > pressing ahead with plans to curb rogue private clamping firms. > > > He also ruled out introducing road pricing, which the Liberal Democrats > > had supported in their manifesto. Tolls may be introduced on new roads > > but charges would not be levied on existing motorways, even where they > > had been widened. > > > It was likely that new roads would be built by private companies, with > > Mr Hammond saying that the Government would look for other sources of > > funds for major projects ? possibly including high-speed rail. > > > ?We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding > > capital expenditure,? he said. > > > However, Mr Hammond?s remarks were given a cautious welcome by Edmund > > King, the AA?s president. With the Government planning spending cuts and > > the Liberal Democrats wanting to cut the roads budget, Mr King voiced > > fears that the Government?s truce may be short-lived. > > > ?While the Transport Secretary?s comments are welcome, I am worried that > > cutting back on road expenditure will leave drivers facing more > > congestion and more potholes,? he said. > > > ?We are worried over the revolving door that has seen 13 transport > > secretaries in 22 years, meaning they have served an average of 20 > > months each. > > > ?If we are having a fixed-term government, why can?t we have a fixed- > > term transport secretary who can get to grips with the brief?? > > The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple. Railways, > buses and other form of public transport are highly unionised and the > trade unions are their major source of income. Also they still live in > a time warp dating back to the early part of the twentieth century, > when only rich toffs drove cars. The proleteriat rode bikes, used > buses or travelled 3rd class on railways. > > Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion > accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now drive > around in cars, because this is the most practical way of getting > around and doing your shopping, now little local corner shops have > mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town supermarkets. > > Derek C- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The answer is to realise this mantra of "public transport" is totally shite for the 75% of the population which doesn't live in London. In all the jobs I have had, (in the west midlands), to use public transport would have trebled, quadrupled, or even more my journey time. Currently, where I work is a 20 minute drive, or 2 hours on the bus - go figure. I *could* take a train, for a 1 hour journey, but that would involve driving to the station where the is no parking. If I take a bus to the station, we're back to a 2 hour journey. Oh, and quite aside from the wasted time, it would cost more than the car journey (assuming you are going to own a car anyway). I would never cycle on a public road. Quite aside from the killer potholes, and safety aspect, I personally believe cyclists cause more pollution than they will ever save. When you see 20 or more cars grinding along at 10 mph, because they are stuck behind a cyclist, you'll understand. In southern Spain, the cycle lanes are *beside* the roads, but separate from the pavement. Much safer, and build with UK money :-( Maybe, 40 years ago, I would have been more amenable to relocating, but I have a family, and moreover, no faith that any job will last beyond the next pay packet. Has anyone every stopped and actually thought about what public transport should be for ?
From: mileburner on 20 May 2010 08:02
Derek C wrote: > On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: You'd have to be pretty >> gullible to really believe that some of the speed limits, cameras >> and "road improvements" you see these days are there to "improve >> safety" or do anything else but make driving unpleasant. Well at least they make driving unpleasant and help reduce the number of drivers on the road. >> It's time the car-haters accepted that spitefully obstructing people >> just for choosing a perfectly legitimate, legal mode of transport >> which may well be the only practical one is totally and utterly out >> of order. It would be if: [1] The use of cars did not cause 3000 deaths and some 30,000 KSIs per annum. [2] The use of cars did not pollute. [3] The use of cars did not terrify other road users. Otherwise, yes, it's *totally* out of order. > The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple. Railways, > buses and other form of public transport are highly unionised and the > trade unions are their major source of income. Also they still live in > a time warp dating back to the early part of the twentieth century, > when only rich toffs drove cars. The proleteriat rode bikes, used > buses or travelled 3rd class on railways. > > Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion > accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now drive > around in cars, because this is the most practical way of getting > around and doing your shopping, now little local corner shops have > mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town supermarkets. Those educated will often look at their travel choices and make to most sensible option. Those who think that their only option is to drive are often from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. |