Who are we, and what do we do? To join or donate to the ABD, visit www.abd.o Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues P2: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P4: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P6: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P7: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P8: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P9: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P11: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P12: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P13: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P14: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues Sorry mate, I didn’t see you . . . how many times have you heard those words when a driver has pulled out in front of another road user? In most cases, the driver will have looked, but been fooled into thinking the road was clear, because of the way our eyes and brains see things when we move our heads. The ABD is seeking to address the problem, by launching a safety campaign to educate road users on the dangers of ‘Saccadic Masking’ - limitations in a driver’s vision, which can effectively create blindspots. As we move our heads from side-to-side at a junction, our eyes send snapshots to our brain at intervals – much like a video camera records different frames. The brain then merges the snapshots into what we think is a continuous image – but that is actually an illusion, because there will be blindspots. And if another road user – often a smaller object such as a motorbike or cyclist – falls within one of these blindspots, they will not be seen. This is known as Saccadic Masking. The faster drivers move their heads at junctions, the more likely they are to create significant blindspots. The ABD is putting forward a series of recommendations to the Department for Transport, in an effort to tackle the issue. They include: l Teaching schoolchildren how to cross the road, especially the need to keep their head still for at least half a second at the end of each sweep to left and right l Educating young cyclists how to look in a similar way, especially at junctions l Encouraging driving instructors to teach about the dangers of saccadic masking and blindspots, and include it in the theory test Putting safety first AGM time is just around the corner P2: ABD in the news – media coverage round-up P4: Funding of speed cameras needs scrutiny P6: Working parties, quangos and acronyms! P7: Social media spreading the ABD message P8: Beware a case of mistaken identity P9: Is it greener to travel by bus, or car? P11: Trans-Pennine tunnel plans revealed P12: Pothole problems – repair bills are rising P13: National Infrastructure Conference report P14: Road sign restrictions are ‘a disgrace’ l Running information campaign for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers. l Including advice on how to look properly in driver improvement courses, when offered instead of fixed penalties for careless driving. The ABD says: “If the following recommendations were implemented, accident numbers and the percentage with ‘failed to look properly’ as a contributory factor should fall over time.” The most common contributory factor to recorded injury accidents has consistently been a driver or rider’s failure to look properly. According to most recent DfT figures, this was a factor in 46% of accidents. A further 9% resulted from a pedestrian’s failure to look properly. This means more than half of all injury accidents are due to failures of observation - so any action that could address the fundamental causes of this problem could reduce accident numbers significantly. l Watch our video on Saccadic Masking on Youtube, by searching for ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’ With the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve Fair deal for diesel drivers is demanded The British people took the momentous decision to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23. Road transport over the last three decades has been influenced (some would say dictated) by EU policymaking which the ABD feels has seen road transport as the poor relation in the transport ‘hierarchy’. While the UK is now in uncharted territory, and the process under way to find a new Prime Minister after David Cameron’s resignation, the ABD says it will be keeping a keen eye on the parliamentary process to see what changes will ensue. Advice to members is to watch out for and beware use of “active travel plans” and object to their introduction in their areas. We shall be taking a strong stance on this issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). Beware of & object to the “active travel plan” Inside our summer 2016 issue: P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 120 Autumn 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues With the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve Fair deal for diesel drivers is demanded The British people took the momentous decision to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23. Road transport over the last three decades has been influenced (some would say dictated) by EU policymaking which the ABD feels has seen road transport as the poor relation in the transport ‘hierarchy’. While the UK is now in uncharted territory, and the process under way to find a new Prime Minister after David Cameron’s resignation, the ABD says it will be keeping a keen eye on the parliamentary process to see what changes will ensue. Advice to members is to watch out for and beware use of “active travel plans” and object to their introduction in their areas. We shall be taking a strong stance on this issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). Beware of & object to the “active travel plan” Inside our summer 2016 issue: P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Inside our autumn 2016 issue: A still image from the video ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’, available on Youtube Phil Carey is one of the speakers at this year’s annual general meeting, in Gaydon What are you doing on Saturday, October 15? We’d love to see you at our annual general meeting, being held at the British Motor Museum in Gaydon, Warwickshire. In addition to the formal business of re-electing officials, delivering reports and presenting the accounts, we have a wide variety of expert speakers on the programme. They include: Jason Evans and Graham Foster of Disabled Motoring UK, who will be looking at problems for drivers with disabilities, and Phil Cleary from Transport Focus – the Government group set up to advise Highways England. ABD London member Roger Lawson will be explaining his speed awareness course campaign, and director Ian Taylor will look at some of the campaigns we have been involved with over the past 12 months. And we are hoping for a good turnout . . . and plenty of challenging questions from the floor! It is all due to start at 10.30am, and the venue is just five minutes from junction 12 of the M40. Our AGM is a chance to meet other like-minded ABD members for some lively discussion – and also includes free entry to the museum. We will be breaking at 12.30pm for lunch, and there’s a café in the museum complex. Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues Sorry mate, I didn’t see you . . . how many times have you heard those words when a driver has pulled out in front of another road user? In most cases, the driver will have looked, but been fooled into thinking the road was clear, because of the way our eyes and brains see things when we move our heads. The ABD is seeking to address the problem, by launching a safety campaign to educate road users on the dangers of ‘Saccadic Masking’ - limitations in a driver’s vision, which can effectively create blindspots. As we move our heads from side-to-side at a junction, our eyes send snapshots to our brain at intervals – much like a video camera records different frames. The brain then merges the snapshots into what we think is a continuous image – but that is actually an illusion, because there will be blindspots. And if another road user – often a smaller object such as a motorbike or cyclist – falls within one of these blindspots, they will not be seen. This is known as Saccadic Masking. The faster drivers move their heads at junctions, the more likely they are to create significant blindspots. The ABD is putting forward a series of recommendations to the Department for Transport, in an effort to tackle the issue. They include: l Teaching schoolchildren how to cross the road, especially the need to keep their head still for at least half a second at the end of each sweep to left and right l Educating young cyclists how to look in a similar way, especially at junctions l Encouraging driving instructors to teach about the dangers of saccadic masking and blindspots, and include it in the theory test P2: ABD in the news – media coverage round-up P4: Funding of speed cameras needs scrutiny P6: Working parties, quangos and acronyms! P7: Social media spreading the ABD message P8: Beware a case of mistaken identity P9: Is it greener to travel by bus, or car? P11: Trans-Pennine tunnel plans revealed P12: Pothole problems – repair bills are rising P13: National Infrastructure Conference report P14: Road sign restrictions are ‘a disgrace’ l Running information campaigns for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers. l Including advice on how to look properly in driver improvement courses, when offered instead of fixed penalties for careless driving. The ABD says: “If the following recommendations were implemented, accident numbers and the percentage with ‘failed to look properly’ as a contributory factor should fall over time.” The most common contributory factor to recorded injury accidents has consistently been a driver or rider’s failure to look properly. According to most recent DfT figures, this was a factor in 46% of accidents. A further 9% resulted from a pedestrian’s failure to look properly. This means more than half of all injury accidents are due to failures of observation - so any action that could address the fundamental causes of this problem could reduce accident numbers significantly. l Watch our video on Saccadic Masking on Youtube, by searching for ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’ Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues ith the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues t was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 120 Autumn 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues ith the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration actual speeds. does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. A still image from the video ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’, available on Youtube doing on Saturday, campaign, and director Ian Taylor will look at some of the campaigns we have been involved with over the past 12 months. And we are hoping for a good turnout . . . and plenty of challenging questions from the floor! It is all due to start at 10.30am, and the venue is just five minutes from junction 12 of the M40. Our AGM is a chance to meet other like-minded ABD members for some lively discussion – and also includes free entry to the museum. We will be breaking at 12.30pm for lunch, and there’s a café in the museum complex. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road traffic accident, and your vehicle suffers significant damage, your insurer will probably offer a ‘courtesy vehicle’ while yours is under repair. That sounds all well and good, but the ABD is warning drivers to check the small print carefully. Because these days the vehicle is more typically supplied to you on what is described in law as a ‘credit hire’ basis – and with a hefty price tag potentially attached. "So what?" you say. Well, in signing for possession of that vehicle, you are authorising the provider to charge that vehicle against any outstanding claim for the accident in which you were involved. And this could be at a daily rate which is typically over £300. The total credit hire costs will be assigned on a blame-apportionment basis once liability has been agreed between the insurers of those involved in the accident. ABD chairman Brian Gregory says: “I am pretty peeved about this whole accident management services scenario. “For £300 per day, it is possible to hire a piece of exotica such as a Bentley Continental GT Coupé rather than some humdrum cabriolet, coupé, hatchback, saloon, SUV, or indeed van originating from one of the mainstream vehicle manufacturers. “A high street provider could rent you a vehicle comparable to your accident-damaged one at one-tenth of the credit-hire rate; so where is the rest of the credit hire cost going? “Well, into the pockets of the insurance company or third party credit hire vehicle provider, presumably . . . “If non-availability of parts delays the commencement of repairs on your vehicle; a three week credit hire spell could easily result - leading to a consequent £5,000-plus credit hire cost overhead being added to the total repair bill.” Mr Gregory has contacted Steve Baker MP, who established and chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Economics, Money and Banking, urging him to investigate. Another ABD member has also referred this whole sector to BBC’s Watchdog programme as worthy of investigation. “It is high time that the road traffic accident management sector was subject to in-depth official investigation, and subsequent regulation to curb the abuses currently occurring within it,” Mr Gregory said. Based on 2014 statistics for reported Call for official investigation into road traffic accident management sector accidents alone - around 150,000 in that year - if provision of replacement vehicles on a credit hire basis adds even £1,000 to the cost of an average insurance claim, that would be £150 million added annually to total insurance claim costs; or roughly £5 per car insurance policy. Brian Gregory adds: “Apparently the accident management services sector is currently totally unregulated; with both the Financial Conduct Authority and the government's Claims Management Regulator indicating that it is outside either of their remits. “When car insurers on the one hand prattle on about the rising cost of accident remediation; while on the other they are complicit in the provision of vehicles at 10 times the daily rate that a high-street provider could furnish them, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. “The blatant profiteering, by both respected insurers and third-party accident management companies alike which appears to be going on in this sector, could easily be constrained by applying a mandatory limit to The ABD is calling on the post-Brexit government to stop its ‘nonsensical’ war on the car . . . and start tackling the real transport problems in the UK. Spokesman Nigel Humphreys said: “Time and again we hear campaigners blaming cars for all the world's ills, yet car emissions have never been lower. “We should scrap HS2 and spend the £60 billion or more on the roads we need.” Read more of Nigel’s comments, including doubts over many of the latest claims expressed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on Page 9. Issue 121 Winter 2017 Inside our winter 2017 issue: Check the small print when claiming on your car insurance Stop car wars the credit-hire charges they are permitted to levy. “A fixed multiple cap could be applied to credit hire charges; at, say, twice the average of a basket of the daily hire rates of the Top 5 high-street hire-car providers for a comparable model to the replacement vehicle being offered.” Peeved - ABD's Brian Gregory Backlash to scheme A public backlash against road closures, pop-up cycle lanes and similar schemes has seen the ending, revision, and – at least temporarily – halting of further schemes across the UK. In London and elsewhere, local residents’ groups have sprung up to pressurise councils to end or rethink poorly-conceived schemes and, in several cases, have been successful. Barriers have been torn down, road signs defaced, while some areas of cities have been brought to a standstill by massive demonstrations against the new measures. The depth of feeling against the Government-financed schemes was reminiscent of the public backlash against the fuel price hikes and the anti-road pricing petition of the noughties organised by the ABD. Following direct pressure from our Voters For Motors arm, 14 Tory MPs signed a letter to transport secretary Grant Shapps highlighting the damage being done by road blocks and cycle lanes installed without consultation. This has produced a climbdown from Government which has now acknowledged that there should be more consultation in future. ABD founder and letter signatory Brian Gregory said: "Motorised road users have been subjected to substantial urban road capacity cuts through lane narrowings and closures, implemented under the manifestly false justification Covid-19 and sparking econo recovery.” The letter from the All Par Parliamentary Group, Fair F UK for Motorists and Haulier also includes the signatures of Howard Cox (FFUK, Richa Burnett (RHA), and former M Lembit Opik (MAG). ABD chairman Ian Taylor ad “These schemes have nothin to do with public health – th have one aim, which is to m life hell for drivers, on whom economy depends. “The spontaneous public protest has struck a chord w those who are fed up with b told how, when, and where may use their vehicles. “The schemes are a massiv waste of taxpayers’ money.” l More protests – see Page Issue 137 Winter 2 A bridge (closure) too far? Here’s just one example of a local authority-imposed closure which has enraged residents. Newcastle City Council has begun shutting some of its small bridges to traffic, saying it wants to make them safer for cyclists and pedestrians. But people living near Stoneyhurst Bridge in South Gosforth say it is ‘fake news’ to suggest that the bridge isn’t capable of carrying all forms of traffic. This image, sent in to us, shows some of the sentiments of residents, who have launched a campaign to reopen the bridge to traffic. They described the closure date as Dictatorship Day, and have left messages on the bri including ‘Give us back our democracy’ and ‘Down with t dictatorship’. “We believe that this closur a ‘bridge too far’, and that th is room for us all,” they say. One angry local, Suzanne McGregor told the BBC she fe the Covid-19 crisis was being ‘used to impose the closure u my community’. 'Open the bridge' messages From the publishers of Cradle to Grave Comparison Between Battery Powered Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion-Engine Vehicles Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues P2: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P4: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P6: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P7: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P8: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P9: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P11: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P12: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P13: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx P14: xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues Sorry mate, I didn’t see you . . . how many times have you heard those words when a driver has pulled out in front of another road user? In most cases, the driver will have looked, but been fooled into thinking the road was clear, because of the way our eyes and brains see things when we move our heads. The ABD is seeking to address the problem, by launching a safety campaign to educate road users on the dangers of ‘Saccadic Masking’ - limitations in a driver’s vision, which can effectively create blindspots. As we move our heads from side-to-side at a junction, our eyes send snapshots to our brain at intervals – much like a video camera records different frames. The brain then merges the snapshots into what we think is a continuous image – but that is actually an illusion, because there will be blindspots. And if another road user – often a smaller object such as a motorbike or cyclist – falls within one of these blindspots, they will not be seen. This is known as Saccadic Masking. The faster drivers move their heads at junctions, the more likely they are to create significant blindspots. The ABD is putting forward a series of recommendations to the Department for Transport, in an effort to tackle the issue. They include: l Teaching schoolchildren how to cross the road, especially the need to keep their head still for at least half a second at the end of each sweep to left and right l Educating young cyclists how to look in a similar way, especially at junctions l Encouraging driving instructors to teach about the dangers of saccadic masking and blindspots, and include it in the theory test Putting safety first AGM time is just around the corner P2: ABD in the news – media coverage round-up P4: Funding of speed cameras needs scrutiny P6: Working parties, quangos and acronyms! P7: Social media spreading the ABD message P8: Beware a case of mistaken identity P9: Is it greener to travel by bus, or car? P11: Trans-Pennine tunnel plans revealed P12: Pothole problems – repair bills are rising P13: National Infrastructure Conference report P14: Road sign restrictions are ‘a disgrace’ l Running information campaign for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers. l Including advice on how to look properly in driver improvement courses, when offered instead of fixed penalties for careless driving. The ABD says: “If the following recommendations were implemented, accident numbers and the percentage with ‘failed to look properly’ as a contributory factor should fall over time.” The most common contributory factor to recorded injury accidents has consistently been a driver or rider’s failure to look properly. According to most recent DfT figures, this was a factor in 46% of accidents. A further 9% resulted from a pedestrian’s failure to look properly. This means more than half of all injury accidents are due to failures of observation - so any action that could address the fundamental causes of this problem could reduce accident numbers significantly. l Watch our video on Saccadic Masking on Youtube, by searching for ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’ With the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve Fair deal for diesel drivers is demanded The British people took the momentous decision to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23. Road transport over the last three decades has been influenced (some would say dictated) by EU policymaking which the ABD feels has seen road transport as the poor relation in the transport ‘hierarchy’. While the UK is now in uncharted territory, and the process under way to find a new Prime Minister after David Cameron’s resignation, the ABD says it will be keeping a keen eye on the parliamentary process to see what changes will ensue. Advice to members is to watch out for and beware use of “active travel plans” and object to their introduction in their areas. We shall be taking a strong stance on this issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). Beware of & object to the “active travel plan” Inside our summer 2016 issue: P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 120 Autumn 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues With the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve Fair deal for diesel drivers is demanded The British people took the momentous decision to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23. Road transport over the last three decades has been influenced (some would say dictated) by EU policymaking which the ABD feels has seen road transport as the poor relation in the transport ‘hierarchy’. While the UK is now in uncharted territory, and the process under way to find a new Prime Minister after David Cameron’s resignation, the ABD says it will be keeping a keen eye on the parliamentary process to see what changes will ensue. Advice to members is to watch out for and beware use of “active travel plans” and object to their introduction in their areas. We shall be taking a strong stance on this issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). Beware of & object to the “active travel plan” Inside our summer 2016 issue: P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own Double delight - but no time to be complacent MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing journey times. Local referenda to set legally binding speed limits might conlict responsibilities. 3. Speed limits afect all drivers visiting or passing through, not just residents. There needs to be reasonable consistency between limits on similar types of road in diferent areas to avoid confusion. There are already too many diferences in speed policies between existing authorities — this Bill would make the situation far worse. The objections made by ABD Inside our spring 2016 issue: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits On The Road speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration 4. Changing speed limits does not guarantee a change in actual speeds. 5. Reduced speed does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Inside our autumn 2016 issue: A still image from the video ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’, available on Youtube Phil Carey is one of the speakers at this year’s annual general meeting, in Gaydon What are you doing on Saturday, October 15? We’d love to see you at our annual general meeting, being held at the British Motor Museum in Gaydon, Warwickshire. In addition to the formal business of re-electing officials, delivering reports and presenting the accounts, we have a wide variety of expert speakers on the programme. They include: Jason Evans and Graham Foster of Disabled Motoring UK, who will be looking at problems for drivers with disabilities, and Phil Cleary from Transport Focus – the Government group set up to advise Highways England. ABD London member Roger Lawson will be explaining his speed awareness course campaign, and director Ian Taylor will look at some of the campaigns we have been involved with over the past 12 months. And we are hoping for a good turnout . . . and plenty of challenging questions from the floor! It is all due to start at 10.30am, and the venue is just five minutes from junction 12 of the M40. Our AGM is a chance to meet other like-minded ABD members for some lively discussion – and also includes free entry to the museum. We will be breaking at 12.30pm for lunch, and there’s a café in the museum complex. Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues Sorry mate, I didn’t see you . . . how many times have you heard those words when a driver has pulled out in front of another road user? In most cases, the driver will have looked, but been fooled into thinking the road was clear, because of the way our eyes and brains see things when we move our heads. The ABD is seeking to address the problem, by launching a safety campaign to educate road users on the dangers of ‘Saccadic Masking’ - limitations in a driver’s vision, which can effectively create blindspots. As we move our heads from side-to-side at a junction, our eyes send snapshots to our brain at intervals – much like a video camera records different frames. The brain then merges the snapshots into what we think is a continuous image – but that is actually an illusion, because there will be blindspots. And if another road user – often a smaller object such as a motorbike or cyclist – falls within one of these blindspots, they will not be seen. This is known as Saccadic Masking. The faster drivers move their heads at junctions, the more likely they are to create significant blindspots. The ABD is putting forward a series of recommendations to the Department for Transport, in an effort to tackle the issue. They include: l Teaching schoolchildren how to cross the road, especially the need to keep their head still for at least half a second at the end of each sweep to left and right l Educating young cyclists how to look in a similar way, especially at junctions l Encouraging driving instructors to teach about the dangers of saccadic masking and blindspots, and include it in the theory test P2: ABD in the news – media coverage round-up P4: Funding of speed cameras needs scrutiny P6: Working parties, quangos and acronyms! P7: Social media spreading the ABD message P8: Beware a case of mistaken identity P9: Is it greener to travel by bus, or car? P11: Trans-Pennine tunnel plans revealed P12: Pothole problems – repair bills are rising P13: National Infrastructure Conference report P14: Road sign restrictions are ‘a disgrace’ l Running information campaigns for adult pedestrians and existing drivers, to explain the dangers – covering TV, cinema, social media, posters and newspapers. l Including advice on how to look properly in driver improvement courses, when offered instead of fixed penalties for careless driving. The ABD says: “If the following recommendations were implemented, accident numbers and the percentage with ‘failed to look properly’ as a contributory factor should fall over time.” The most common contributory factor to recorded injury accidents has consistently been a driver or rider’s failure to look properly. According to most recent DfT figures, this was a factor in 46% of accidents. A further 9% resulted from a pedestrian’s failure to look properly. This means more than half of all injury accidents are due to failures of observation - so any action that could address the fundamental causes of this problem could reduce accident numbers significantly. l Watch our video on Saccadic Masking on Youtube, by searching for ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’ Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues ith the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues t was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 120 Autumn 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues ith the EU referendum result now decided, UK drivers are now fair game for a hike in fuel tax! That’s what FairFuelUK, the award-winning public affairs campaign that fights for lower fuel duty and more transparent pricing at the pumps, says it has been told by ‘reliable Treasury sources’. The excuse? For the sake of the environment. The FairFuelUK view? A kneejerk tax rise on diesel will not lower pollution levels or usage! The organisation has launched an opinion poll of drivers, and will soon be sending the results to the Treasury, the Transport Minister, MPs and the media. It says: “We are calling for a grown up sensible Government debate to incentivise not penalise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. Do you agree with this objective? “The heart of our economy is driven by diesel, so inflation and jobs will be at risk if the price of this fuel is increased. “The out of touch Transport Minister’s announcement means the dirtiest vehicles, which may be most responsive to an emissions tax, would simply not be taxed enough while modern clean vehicles would be over-taxed. “Yes that’s right, a clean diesel Euro 6 engine will pay the same for fuel as an engine not meeting those standards.” FairFuelUK is asking MPs to stop this ‘naïve issue, leading the fight, and are strongly urging all members and supporters to use this opportunity to raise the profile of private vehicle owners, and put pressure on their elected representatives to represent the views of the largest user group and taxpayer of our roads – the drivers. The Alliance of British Drivers is a nonparty political pro-driver campaigning organisation which remained neutral on the EU membership issue. But in a poll of members carried out shortly before the EU referendum, there was an overwhelming majority of members who wanted Britain to vote to leave. (See P4-5 for more details). P2: Read all about it - ABD making headlines P4: Brexit by a landslide - results of ABD’s EU survey P6: Jobsworths, and the political merry-go-round P7: Driverless cars - don’t be taken in by the hype P8: The need for speed - is 80mph limit a good idea? P10: Latest report from ABD’s Drivers Committee P11: Warm reception for ABD from Freedom Association P12: Westminster bulletin - what’s new in Whitehall? P13: Report from Road User Panel at Transport Focus P14: From cyclists to speed cameras - news in brief P15: Your views - ABD members have their say Motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively for diesel at the pumps than drivers in the UK ill-informed tax hike in its infancy’ and calling yet again for a grown-up sensible debate to incentivise owners of dirty engines to trade up to cleaner units. “A well thought out diesel scrappage scheme which is supported by hundreds of MPs will work,” it says. “FairFuelUK supporters want cleaner air too, but this will NOT be achieved using punitive tax hikes.” FairFuelUK adds: “So why does our UK Government fleece diesel drivers so much, especially when motorists and truckers in EU states like Germany and Poland pay 25p and 42p less respectively? “Let’s motivate environmental change instead of using a quick Treasury cash grab fleecing hauliers and millions of UK motorists.” Date for your diary - The ABD’s Annual General Meeting will be held this year on Saturday October 15th at the Heritage Motor Museum, Gaydon, starting at 10.30am The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own the Bill Thanks to Malcolm Heymer, who examined the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: 1. Parish councils can already lobby highways authorities on speed limits, as can individuals. 2. Highways authorities have legal responsibility to maintain a safe and eicient network and set speed limits that promote safety without unnecessarily increasing P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. Issue 119 Summer 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Issue 118 Spring 2016 Visit www.abd.org.uk for further details. To join the ABD call now on 0161 408 7070 The ABD campaign for l Improved road user training l Real transport choices l Investment in Britain’s roads l Honesty on transport issues It was looking like a case of ‘double trouble’ this winter, with two anti-driver Private Member’s Bills making their way through parliament. But both of them – one which would have given councils the power to ban all pavement parking, and the other allowing parish and town councils to set their own speed limits – have been withdrawn. While the ABD can’t claim this was down to us, it did follow a concerted lobbying campaign voicing our opposition, which attracted a lot of media attention. ABD director Ian Taylor says: “We cannot be complacent, though. The Government has committed to a policy review on adopting a coherent nationwide approach to regulate pavement parking which will involve roundtable discussions on legislative implications. “The people and organisations behind the Pavement Parking bill will probably be around that table, and if possible we too need to try to secure a place.” In Scotland, the news is less promising. The Scottish government is continuing to pursue legislation to make it an ofence to park on a pavement – citing problems to guide dog owners, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. Ian Taylor added: “Our friends at Disabled Motoring UK have an interest in this which we appreciate. We oppose obstruction of pavements and highways alike, but don’t want to see pavement parking outlawed totally, because it sometimes serves a useful purpose without obstructing – hence our suggested one metre clear space rule.” The Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill sought to allow parish and town councils the power to set their own MP Scott Mann had been promoting the Bill Bill in detail, the ABD raised seven objections: P2: P3: P4: P5: P6: P8: P11: P14: P15: P16: Withdrawn - an anti-driver Private Member’s Bill allowing local councils to set speed limits speed limits in “local areas”, following local referenda, which would then be introduced over the head of highways authorities – without giving them any say. The ABD felt this would be a disaster for drivers, and again launched a campaign of lobbying MPs and media coverage. Speed limits set on the whim of residents’ votes is, in the ABD’s view, localism carried too far. Traic speeds would be dictated purely by residents, while other users of the roads would not get a say. Ian Taylor says: “It is a job for experts, not the votes of amateurs, who would doubtless be egged on by those lobby groups who campaign for speeds to come down to nearly walking pace. “This would become hell for drivers, at the hands of those who think they own their streets and have no concept of the point of a public highway network.” On the day of the second reading, our eforts were rewarded: on the request of the government minister Robert Goodwill, the bill was withdrawn. Again, probably not all down to the ABD, but a good result all the same. Time for a small, if cautious celebration actual speeds. does not guarantee a reduction in accidents; slower is not necessarily safer. Limits set too low create driver conlict and increase speed variance, which is more highly correlated with accident risk than average speed. 6. Residents frequently exaggerate the speeds of vehicles on ‘their’ roads. Speed limit changes should never be considered on the basis of residents’ claims alone; there must be objective surveys. 7. Comparing accident numbers on 20mph and 30mph roads (as Scott Mann MP, the Bill’s promoter did) without taking into account the vastly greater number of 30mph roads is nonsense. A still image from the video ‘ABD Road Safety – Saccadic Masking’, available on Youtube doing on Saturday, campaign, and director Ian Taylor will look at some of the campaigns we have been involved with over the past 12 months. And we are hoping for a good turnout . . . and plenty of challenging questions from the floor! It is all due to start at 10.30am, and the venue is just five minutes from junction 12 of the M40. Our AGM is a chance to meet other like-minded ABD members for some lively discussion – and also includes free entry to the museum. We will be breaking at 12.30pm for lunch, and there’s a café in the museum complex. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road traffic accident, and your vehicle suffers significant damage, your insurer will probably offer a ‘courtesy vehicle’ while yours is under repair. That sounds all well and good, but the ABD is warning drivers to check the small print carefully. Because these days the vehicle is more typically supplied to you on what is described in law as a ‘credit hire’ basis – and with a hefty price tag potentially attached. "So what?" you say. Well, in signing for possession of that vehicle, you are authorising the provider to charge that vehicle against any outstanding claim for the accident in which you were involved. And this could be at a daily rate which is typically over £300. The total credit hire costs will be assigned on a blame-apportionment basis once liability has been agreed between the insurers of those involved in the accident. ABD chairman Brian Gregory says: “I am pretty peeved about this whole accident management services scenario. “For £300 per day, it is possible to hire a piece of exotica such as a Bentley Continental GT Coupé rather than some humdrum cabriolet, coupé, hatchback, saloon, SUV, or indeed van originating from one of the mainstream vehicle manufacturers. “A high street provider could rent you a vehicle comparable to your accident-damaged one at one-tenth of the credit-hire rate; so where is the rest of the credit hire cost going? “Well, into the pockets of the insurance company or third party credit hire vehicle provider, presumably . . . “If non-availability of parts delays the commencement of repairs on your vehicle; a three week credit hire spell could easily result - leading to a consequent £5,000-plus credit hire cost overhead being added to the total repair bill.” Mr Gregory has contacted Steve Baker MP, who established and chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Economics, Money and Banking, urging him to investigate. Another ABD member has also referred this whole sector to BBC’s Watchdog programme as worthy of investigation. “It is high time that the road traffic accident management sector was subject to in-depth official investigation, and subsequent regulation to curb the abuses currently occurring within it,” Mr Gregory said. Based on 2014 statistics for reported Call for official investigation into road traffic accident management sector accidents alone - around 150,000 in that year - if provision of replacement vehicles on a credit hire basis adds even £1,000 to the cost of an average insurance claim, that would be £150 million added annually to total insurance claim costs; or roughly £5 per car insurance policy. Brian Gregory adds: “Apparently the accident management services sector is currently totally unregulated; with both the Financial Conduct Authority and the government's Claims Management Regulator indicating that it is outside either of their remits. “When car insurers on the one hand prattle on about the rising cost of accident remediation; while on the other they are complicit in the provision of vehicles at 10 times the daily rate that a high-street provider could furnish them, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. “The blatant profiteering, by both respected insurers and third-party accident management companies alike which appears to be going on in this sector, could easily be constrained by applying a mandatory limit to The ABD is calling on the post-Brexit government to stop its ‘nonsensical’ war on the car . . . and start tackling the real transport problems in the UK. Spokesman Nigel Humphreys said: “Time and again we hear campaigners blaming cars for all the world's ills, yet car emissions have never been lower. “We should scrap HS2 and spend the £60 billion or more on the roads we need.” Read more of Nigel’s comments, including doubts over many of the latest claims expressed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on Page 9. Issue 121 Winter 2017 Inside our winter 2017 issue: Check the small print when claiming on your car insurance Stop car wars the credit-hire charges they are permitted to levy. “A fixed multiple cap could be applied to credit hire charges; at, say, twice the average of a basket of the daily hire rates of the Top 5 high-street hire-car providers for a comparable model to the replacement vehicle being offered.” Peeved - ABD's Brian Gregory Backlash to scheme A public backlash against road closures, pop-up cycle lanes and similar schemes has seen the ending, revision, and – at least temporarily – halting of further schemes across the UK. In London and elsewhere, local residents’ groups have sprung up to pressurise councils to end or rethink poorly-conceived schemes and, in several cases, have been successful. Barriers have been torn down, road signs defaced, while some areas of cities have been brought to a standstill by massive demonstrations against the new measures. The depth of feeling against the Government-financed schemes was reminiscent of the public backlash against the fuel price hikes and the anti-road pricing petition of the noughties organised by the ABD. Following direct pressure from our Voters For Motors arm, 14 Tory MPs signed a letter to transport secretary Grant Shapps highlighting the damage being done by road blocks and cycle lanes installed without consultation. This has produced a climbdown from Government which has now acknowledged that there should be more consultation in future. ABD founder and letter signatory Brian Gregory said: "Motorised road users have been subjected to substantial urban road capacity cuts through lane narrowings and closures, implemented under the manifestly false justificati Covid-19 and sparking eco recovery.” The letter from the All P Parliamentary Group, Fair UK for Motorists and Hauli also includes the signature of Howard Cox (FFUK, Ric Burnett (RHA), and forme Lembit Opik (MAG). ABD chairman Ian Taylor “These schemes have noth to do with public health – have one aim, which is to life hell for drivers, on wh economy depends. “The spontaneous public protest has struck a chord those who are fed up with told how, when, and wher may use their vehicles. “The schemes are a mas waste of taxpayers’ mone l More protests – see Pa Issue 137 Winter A bridge (closure) too far Here’s just one example of a local authority-imposed closure which has enraged residents. Newcastle City Council has begun shutting some of its small bridges to traffic, saying it wants to make them safer for cyclists and pedestrians. But people living near Stoneyhurst Bridge in South Gosforth say it is ‘fake news’ to suggest that the bridge isn’t capable of carrying all forms of traffic. This image, sent in to us, shows some of the sentiments of residents, who have launched a campaign to reopen the bridge to traffic. They described the closur date as Dictatorship Day, an have left messages on the b including ‘Give us back our democracy’ and ‘Down with dictatorship’. “We believe that this clos a ‘bridge too far’, and that is room for us all,” they say One angry local, Suzanne McGregor told the BBC she the Covid-19 crisis was bein ‘used to impose the closure my community’. 'Open the bridge' messages From the publishers of AGM time is Beware of The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers 18 Spring 2016 The objections On The Road 19 Summer 2016 20 Autumn 2016 Beware of The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Spring 2016 The objections On The Road Summer 2016 On The Road The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers 8 Spring 2016 9 Summer 2016 0 Autumn 2016 The journal of the Alliance of British Drivers Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Call for official investigation into road 21 Winter 2017 ssue 137 Winter 2020
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODMyMDY=