A welcome return home for the Olympic Torch
- Today's leader
Group to air views of drivers
Friday 13th June 2008, 11:50AM BST.
A Shropshire road pricing campaigner Peter Roberts whose online petition gained more than 1.8 million signatures is launching a national pressure group to give a voice to drivers.Mr Roberts, of Telford, hopes that at least half a million people will join the Drivers’ Alliance by the end of the year.
He is creating the internet-based organisation to give members a forum to discuss ways of pressuring the Government in a bid to secure better use of the £50 billion a year raised from motoring taxes.
Mr Roberts, who has given up his account manager job to concentrate on the organisation, said he had been thinking of setting it up for a while and had been turning the idea into reality over the last three months.
He said while there were lobbying groups for lorry drivers and motorcyclists there was not a truly representative membership lobbying group for motorists.
Mr Roberts said two of the key areas would be congestion charging and road pricing. He added that as far as he was concerned roads were a “national asset” paid for by the public.
“They are not for the Government to sell off to private companies. They are there as custodians,” he said.
He added his new group was not there to “pick a fight” with politicians.
“We are not just petrol-heads and lunatics. We realise we need to build bridges with the Government,” he went on.
He admitted the Government was likely to be suspicious about the organisation but said: “We have a huge amount of public support and it’s fair to say road users are absolutely fed up with the way they are being treated and with the huge amount of tax they pay.
“Why should anyone have to pay a congestion charge to use a highways infrastructure that our parents and grandparents paid for?”
He added: “We are wholly committed to maximising safety on our roads and promoting realistic and constructive policies that reduce the environment impact of road use while seeking to ease congestion.”
The Drivers’ Alliance will be a limited company and Mr Roberts said any profits would go back into it.
Visit http://driversalliance.org.uk
By Lisa Rowley
Sponsored Links
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
LIVE traffic updates
Road, rail and airport - latest
Our new, live traffic and travel updates service - check before you set out.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
About time we had a say. The roads are a joke and this goverment has no idea about what motorists should be getting for the ever increasing road taxes we pay.
Report abuse
Bet he has nothing better to do, sad git, why doesnt he trying cycling instead
Report abuse
John Simpson’s comment is so typical of those who would sooner see us back in the dark ages, and shows why it’s impossible to have a reasonable argument with such people.
I suppose he thinks I should cycle to work, along fast main roads, carrying my files, laptop et al and then conduct my countywide home visits by bike.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the Government is clueless in all matters relating to transport, as it would appear is John Simpson. If you’ve nothing sensible or reasonable to say, then please don’t bother.
Mr Roberts – I applaud your stand which I shall support.
Report abuse
John, if you have nothing constructive to say (and in my experience you fit the cycling stereotype), can I suggest you crawl back under your rock and desist from commenting further on subjects you obviously know nothing about.
Peter has my full support. Motorists in this country have, for too long, lacked a concerted united voice on matters that affect them. The late, lamented, Paul Smith of SafeSpeed was a lone voice of common sense on all matters relating to road safety yet even he was subjected to the sort of ad hominem abuse demonstrated by John Simpson above.
The government has the ear of militant cycling lobbyists, green campaigners, and left-leaning agitators intent on social engineering through restriction on the use of cars.
Drivers need a representative that can table their messages and remits clearly, and concisely without resorting to inflammatory sound-bites that are currently endemic from anti-motoring groups.
Peter Roberts is the person to step forward on this matter.
Best wishes, Peter.
Report abuse
I agree with Mark and spindrift that insulting people just because they have different opinions (as john simpson does in Comment #2) is not helpful, and puts people off exploring ideas and looking for solutions to difficult problems like transport.
However, I do have an important question about this new lobbying organisation and Mr Roberts’ suitability.
Mr Roberts says that he wants a ‘truly representative’ membership lobbying group for motorists.
However, last year in a debate on the Shropshire Star site, Mr Roberts disputed man-made global warming.
( See Comment #8 of ‘Climate change to blame’ http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ )
I accept that there are all sorts of car drivers, with many different opinions, some of whom may share Mr Roberts’ views that ‘man-made global warming is a false religion’.
However, if he is to represent ALL car drivers, rather than an assertive minority, who choose to wilfully ignore the scientific consensus, I would be very interested to see whether he is still in denial about man’s influence on the environment.
I look forward to having a ‘reasonable argument’ about this.
Report abuse
Personally, I think that Peter has made a very bold move in conceptualizing and – more importantly – actioning Drivers Alliance. I have met Peter and he is as passionate about motoring as he is lucid. Maybe in the future as Drivers Alliance evolves, the “green” angle will be explored but I suspect that initially it will focus on the day-to-day issues that affect all motorists.
Peter will not be the only driver (!) behind the group; the ABD and SafeSpeed both have a number of people behind the scenes who make policy decisions.
Report abuse
When cyclists pay for the road facilites they use – (which I might reasonably suspect the “motorist” pays for) – then I think they can have a say – and when they do have a say – elect someone who can offer intelligent input – and not one who resorts to abuse such as “sad git”.
The motoring and transport fraternity, who pay such enormous amounts of tax to use our disgraceful road system – are long overdue proper consideration.
And….. it’s about time that serious action by this “very large section of the voting community” was considered…. to bring some common sense into our transport system
For those of us that use the roads regularly – providing economic activity to this country – by covering distances and carrying goods that could NEVER be carried by bike – I say Good luck Paul Roberts…. and …
Shame on you john Simpson. Why did you need to resort to insulting comments ? Surely that is no way to fight your corner?
Regards
askeric dotcom
Report abuse
As supporters of Peter Roberts have ignored my question, I will have to repeat it.
Do you think that Peter Roberts can be ‘truly representative’ of ALL British motorists?
To me, it seems that he cannot be.
To me, it seems that the only people he can truly represent are the dwindling number of drivers, who deny the impact of car transport on global warming.
Do you not agree?
Exploring the green angle cannot be a bolt-on ‘maybe’.
Sustainability has to be at the heart of the transport debate, and those who want to represent ALL motorists can surely not deny that, can they?
Report abuse
As the supporters of Peter Roberts have not responded, I will repeat my question in the hope that someone engages with what, I think, is an important point.
Unless Mr Roberts’ views on man-made global warming have not changed since last September, he cannot possibly claim to represent ALL drivers.
Instead, he surely only represents that small percentage of drivers, who assert that transport has no impact on the atmosphere and that climate change is unaffected by mankind.
The ‘green’ angle is not a bolt-on afterthought, spindrift. Confronting the challenges that it raises is absolutely central to this debate, and cannot be brushed under the carpet or postponed indefinitely.
In light of Mr Roberts’ denial of transport’s impact, it is hard to see how he is going to be ‘truly representative’.
Report abuse
I feel I have to respond here.
It seems that there is a question as to whether Peter Roberts is an ideal representative …. so …Huw Peach, over to you ….. WHO do you suggest then?
And …. just WHERE did all the talk about global warming and Green issues come from??
This debate is about a section of the community that pays huge amounts in costs and tax – and is seeking justly deserved representation.
The issues of global warming are not being denied here, or swept under the carpet. – They are perfectly well debated on other platforms.
Global warming will, no doubt form a central part of future energy and transport policy – and indeed will, no doubt, be well supported by the motoring fraternity too.
But -this thread is about the motoring franternity having a voice, NOT about green issues and global warming.
Regards
Askeric dotcom
Report abuse
Can anyone suggest an alternative to Peter Roberts capable of, and dedicating enough time to, representing the average motorist and who is passionate about all matters relating to driving?
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that many, many drivers are not – in fact – driving enthusiasts and see “their car” as nothing more than a necessity; a “white good” if you like. They probably take no more pride in their driving than they do washing the dishes. But their car may be essential to them for personal mobility / visiting friends or family in other parts of the country / holidaying at their static caravan in Borth. Yet even these drivers need a voice, even if they do not know it.
Drivers need an organisation that speaks out against poorly applied road re-engineering, ill-thought-out speed limits, engineered congestion, the crippling and ever increasing cost of running a modest car. These are the issues that require addressing in the first instance.
Green issues will play a part in the remit of Drivers Alliance I suspect, they won’t be brushed under the carpet, but – IMHO – they are not currently central to the debate about the Drivers Alliance organisation.
Report abuse
Thanks very much to askeric.com and spindrift for responding, if only tangentially.
You both make good points about drivers deserving a hard-working representative, who speaks up for their interests.
However, you both avoid the main thrust of my quite simple question.
How can Peter Roberts claim to be ‘truly representative’ of ALL drivers, when much of his hard work is devoted to denying that climate change is affected by mankind in general and road transport in particular?
Askeric.com says, ‘the issues of global warming are not being denied here’.
However, if you read Mr Roberts contributions on this link http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ , then you will see that he DOES deny the issues of global warming.
He questions the competence of Britain’s foremost scientific institution, the Royal Society, to issue information on man-made global warming, he questions whether carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas (ie he denies basic meteorology) and my personal favourite is Peter Roberts’ remark in Comment #50 of that thread ‘we must first accept that the man-made global warming thing is irrelevant, and drop it’.
Is this not a case of brushing inconvenient truths under the carpet, spindrift?
Report abuse
Much of Peter’s hard work over the last few years has been dedicated to the support and recognition of the concerns of everyday motorists. Such an agenda involves a huge number of issues, and will consume a considerable amount of time to address. One such issue – amongst the many – is the environmental impact of cars. But to claim that Peter is the wrong candidate to head an organisation such as Drivers Alliance on the basis of his views on one of many motoring related issues is a little disingenuous IMHO.
Maybe some of the more lucid motoring journalists would be more suited to heading this organisation. The late, great LJK Setright springs immediately to mind, as does Steve Cropley, Georg Kacher, Colin Goodwin and Martin Buckley. But even then, despite their impeccable credentials in motoring journalism and their comment and examination of all things car related, they would be castigated as having a disproportionatley pro-car agenda. Then again, by the same token, anyone fronting Drivers Alliance who has a marginal interest in cars and motoring, and with a particularly green axe to grind would be labelled as unrepresentative of the average driver. It’s a difficult call.
Nevertheless, whether or not Peter is the right person to front Drivers Alliance he at least has the conviction to stand up and speak for the constantly, financially, progressively thwarted drivers of this country.
So, Huw, do you have the name of a more appropriate candidate for the public face of Drivers Alliance?
Report abuse
Dear Huw.
I have said that this thread deals with a voice for the motoring fraternity – and not global warming.
Whether Mr Roberts Denies Global warming or not is not relevant here. We might as well talk about wheelie bins and fornightly rubbish collections, or any other subject that you or Mr Roberts “denies” for what that’s worth. -
I am not prepared to enter into a futile discussion with you.
This thread is about a voice for the motoring transport fraternity, and NOT about global warming
That is my last word on this subject and on this thread.
Goodnight, and goodbye
Askeric dotcom
Report abuse
Huw, how can you say that Mr Roberts will represent only a minority of drivers? Surely the support he gets will verify whever you are right or not. The fact that he got 1.8 million signatures on a web petition goes some way to showing the support this man has. As for saying he won’t be helping Global Warming, the fact that he wants to rid us of un neccessary congestion, traffic lights and un realistic speed limits alone has got to help Global Warming. The british motorist is wasting fuel and emitting far more co than it needs to by sitting in man made traffic jams which in the main are conjured up by local authorities in a bid to introduce congestion charging.
In Telford alone the average journey time has almost doubled over the last five years by unneccessary traffic lights, speed limits, road humps and road closures, if he can go some way to eradicate some of these he will be saving wasted petrol being burnt while siiting in jams and lowering co emmissions for the average jouney.
Report abuse
Thanks for responding again, spindrift, askeric.com and BRIAN(2). I really appreciate the opportunity to debate these vital issues with you.
First of all, spindrift, I have to repeat that I have no doubts about Mr Roberts’ capacity for hard work, his passion or the strength of his convictions. These, as you rightly say, are all positive qualities in anyone one who wants to head an organisation.
My objection to Peter Roberts’ claim to represent the ‘average motorist’ stems from his counter-factual views on global warming.
Yes, he represents the average motorist, who denies the effect of his car on the environment. That is clear.
However, most people in this country (drivers included) do not share Mr Roberts’ untenable views on global warming.
Politicians from ALL parties have committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. Many scientists are now saying that 80% cuts are needed.
Recognising these commitments and the science, which underpins them, does not turn you into someone with ‘a green axe to grind’.
It simply means that you are willing to face facts and to look responsibly at the way we all get from A to B.
Spindrift, I am interested to know how you can dismiss this massive challenge to us as a society, and its centrality to transport planning as ‘one of many motoring related issues’.
Again, though, I am grateful to you for engaging in this debate.
Report abuse
Now I would like to respond to you, askeric.com.
Mr Roberts’ views on wheelie bins or fortnightly rubbish collections do not interest me in the slightest.
Why?
These issues have NO bearing whatsoever on the road transport debate.
Global warming, on the other hand, is CENTRAL to the transport debate.
In my opinion, someone, claiming in a public debate to be ‘truly representative’ of ALL drivers, would have zero credibility with the majority of the population, if it emerged that he denied road transport’s effect on global warming.
The ‘average motorist’ would not feel truly represented. He/she would feel embarrassed.
Sorry to lose you from the debate, askeric.com. I hope you slept well.
Report abuse
BRIAN(2), your point about the number of signatures Peter Roberts got for his petition is a strong one. He is clearly a very effective campaigner and, as I acknowledged to spindrift, someone who clearly feels strongly about this subject.
However, denying the harm being done to our environment by our current way of thinking about transport, among other things, is not an option any more.
It would be interesting to see how many signatures Peter Roberts could get for a petition saying things like ‘The only people who really believe CO2 is the cause of climate change are the green evangelicists, pseudo scientists looking for a government funded project and politicians looking to scare us into paying higher taxes.’ (Comment #8 http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ )
BRIAN(2), you spoke about the sort of things Mr Roberts wants to introduce to reduce emissions. However, surely you must accept that this argument (above) does not come from someone, who is at all bothered about reducing CO2.
For Mr Roberts’ information, here are 41 scientific institutions (NOT pseudo-scientists), which recognize that man’s activities have an effect on the climate.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.
I do hope that Peter Roberts will realise that this issue is not going to go away, and that –if he is to have any credibility as being ‘truly representative’- he needs to publicly accept that tackling climate change is THE key issue for all sides in the transport debate.
Report abuse
Huw.
Quite honestly, from reading your comments, you do not fit into the “average” motorist or the majority category so wonder if you really know what the “average” or the majority of motorists really cares about.
Report abuse
Thanks for getting back, BRIAN(2).
You are, of course, right to say that I am not the average motorist, although I do possess a car.
However, if you look at this opinion poll from a Daily Telegraph article last July (‘Public ‘in denial’ about climate change’ 03/07/2007), you will see that I do fit into the majority on a number of questions which are salient to the transport debate.
I am part of the significant minority (45%) who place global warming at the top of a list of the most serious threats to mankind.
I am part of the majority (68%) who believe we are seeing climate change now, and the overwhelming majority (90%), who believe climate change will have a significant impact on future generations.
Only 9% share Peter Roberts’ view that global warming is caused by natural events.
Asked if climate change was exaggerated and ’caused too much fuss’ 75% disagreed. I am part of that majority.
70% agreed that the Government should take the lead in combating climate change even if it means using the law to change people’s behaviour.
Are you telling me that none of these majorities, which are prepared to face facts about climate change, encompass average motorists, BRIAN(2)?
Report abuse
Well no matter what you have against Peter Roberts and whatever his views are on Global Warming,( I too believe that it is not entirely down to man) , you must accept that anything Peter can do to stop this madness that we are seeing from local councils with the ridiculous “man made” congestion with speed humps, traffic lights where not needed and silly speed limits causing excessive fuel burning, has got to be a benefit.
I personally have seen my fuel usage go up drastically with the ridiculous “slow down the traffic at all costs ” ideas that are springing up every where.
Report abuse
Having woken up (as per Huw ‘s comment) it is clear that Huw wants to own, and control, the whole debate by his incessant ranting about facts on global warming.
And Huw…. you have completely misunderstood my comment about wheelie bins …. that’s becuase, you are so entrenched in your world of facts and figures about global warming …. that you’ve completely lost the plot – and failed to see the relevance of the statement ! (YES I KNEW you Wouldn’t be interested …. that was the whole damn point!!!!)
I therefore suggest that you Huw , take on the responsibilty from Mr Roberts to represent this pressure group, as clearly you have the time knowledge, and resources to do it.
Now ….
That IS my last word on the subject.
I will NOT return to this debate.
Kind Regards
don’t askeric dotcom
Report abuse
Huw, you do table some clear arguments and facts concerning the environmental impact of cars / buses / lorries / taxis (choose your target of choice). However, I would say that quoting the results of one poll from one national newspaper (reputable though The Telegraph is – I wish it was not a broadsheet as I would subscribe to it in a shot) is akin to “one swallow does not a summer make”.
I am no expert on climate change, but I do read and digest comments from both sides of the fence as I feel I should do so. Both sides table strong arguments that – to me – are equally convincing, yet do not sway me either way.
Notwithstanding this, and the debate concerning the environmental impact of transport, Peter Roberts I maintain is – regardless of his views on climate change – the best person for the job as no-one else has the time nor conviction to stand up and speak for Joe Driver.
If Peter is not the person with the necessary credentials for the job, Huw, then who would you suggest is a suitable candidate for fronting Drivers Alliance?
Report abuse
Thanks again to BRIAN(2), askeric.com and spindrift for continuing this debate. It is good to be able to exchange ideas about this difficult and complicated issue in a courteous and respectful way.
In response to your point, BRIAN(2), I have nothing against Peter Roberts personally. In fact I have made it clear on a number of occasions in this debate that I can respect his commitment and passion for his cause, even if I do not agree with it.
My problem with his advocacy is that it cannot possibly be described as ‘lucid’, when he denies a problem, which the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) says UK industry must take seriously and fundamentally change its approach towards (November 17th 2007).
Your point about traffic-calming measures is interesting.
Have you heard about the abolition of traffic lights in the town of Drachten in Holland, a scheme sponsored by the European Union? (reported in the Daily Telegraph 04/11/2006 ‘Is this the end of the road for traffic lights?’).
In this town there used to be a road death every 3 years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started 9 years ago.
There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be encouraged, according to the traffic planner behind the scheme, Hans Monderman, who says he wants small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt.
According to him, it works well because it is dangerous, and it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver, cyclist or pedestrian being responsible for his or her own risk.
What do you think of this idea, BRIAN(2)? It seems to chime with what you are saying about Peter Roberts’ proposals, and is the sort of idea, which would attract support from Greens like me.
Report abuse
Denying man-made global warming IS salient to a debate about who should represent the motoring transport fraternity, askeric.com.
Why?
Because the motoring transport fraternity (that’s me included, whether you like it or not) has an undeniable collective effect on climate.
A ‘voice for the motoring transport fraternity’ cannot be hermetically isolated from the well-documented consequences of its advocacy. And surely that voice cannot deny those consequences.
A ‘truly representative’ voice, advocating measures, which will increase CO2 emissions and affect climate change and other people across the world, cannot be ‘truly representative’ if that voice denies a problem which only 9% of British people deny.
This problem needs to be confronted, we need to see things clearly as they are (ie be lucid) and all of us need to share ideas (like BRIAN(2) does), find common ground and debate potential solutions.
I am glad that you’re awake now, if only for a brief moment, and even if you haven’t yet woken up to what almost half the UK population regard as ‘the most serious threat to mankind’.
There’s still time to reflect further. I would sleep on it if I were you.
Report abuse
Spindrift, you say that ‘one swallow does not a summer make’, in reference to me citing one poll in the Daily Telegraph.
What about the 41 swallows, which I mentioned in Comment #18?
Not one of you commented on this list.
I know askeric.com probably had his ear-plugs in, because he doesn’t like birds to disturb him when he is having a good sleep, but were you also unable to hear or even acknowledge their tweeting, spindrift?
These respected scientific institutions in comment #18 are ‘truly representative’ of the international scientific consensus on climate change.
Your comment about their being two ‘sides of the fence’ is simply false. If it isn’t, then please name ONE respected scientific institution which disputes MMGW.
The swallows have been off the fence for years, as acknowledged by the CBI last November, and as David Attenborough will make clear in his new DVD, The Truth About Climate Change (released 23rd June 2008).
How can the unrepresentative Drivers Alliance remain deaf to so much noise?
We know you think the motoring transport fraternity needs a VOICE.
Surely people will only take it seriously when it acquires some EYES and EARS.
Report abuse
Huw, I agree entirely with you about the Dutch traffic light scheme. I believe most of the traffic lights around at the moment are pointless and this is shown when they fail for a few hours, traffic qeueing suddenly dissappears and traffic moves more freely even at the busy ones such as Featherbead lane in Shrewsbury.
The main problem with roads today are they are being “dumbed down” for the benefit of the drivers who do not know how to be observant at junctions or approach islands in the correct lane or at the safest speed to continue safely without holding up other traffic. If we got rid of all these “dumbimg down” ideas the roads may even get safer. Take the A442 Eastern Primary for an example. All that money and work spent “Dumbing it Down” and it is now less safe and the accidents have gone up. Part P electrical regs are another example but I digress.
I have a report done for Telford and Wrekin council that states that they should NOT reduce the speed limit on a main road from 60MPH to 40MPH because the road doesn’t warrant it and they had to spend several thousand, “Dumbing Down” the road to warrant a 40 MPH limit but they went ahead even though those “Dumbing Down” measures are costing the taxpayer an EXTRA £32,000 PER YEAR and that does not take into account the extra fuel burnt because of these “Dumbing Down” so called safety measures.
I truly believe that if motorists had to think more and work harder at driving then roads would become safer and less fuel would be burnt sat in slow moving or stationary qeues.
Report abuse
Huw, as tabled in comments #10, #11, #12, and #23, do you have in mind a suitable alternative candidate for fronting Drivers Alliance?
Report abuse
BRIAN(2), I agree with you that the more all of us have to think about other road-users, then the safer the roads will become.
But do you think that cyclists would be safer on roads with a 60mph speed limit or a 40mph speed limit?
With oil prices going up and evidence mounting that people are getting fatter, do you not think that it would be a sensible measure to expand the bike networks of this country considerably?
Report abuse
spindrift, you requested an alternative candidate.
So, to repeat…
A VOICE for the motoring transport fraternity will only be taken seriously by the wider public if it is connected to EYES and EARS.
You used the word LUCID to describe Peter Roberts.
However, there is no way that this man could possibly be described as lucid.
After all, he denies (using David Attenborough’s words) the truth about climate change.
He denies basic meteorology.
Peter Roberts is therefore clearly NOT lucid.
A more suitable adjective to describe someone who denies information disseminated by the 41 scientific institutions I quoted in in Comment #18 is BLINKERED.
A good adjective to describe someone who denies a problem, which 90% of the UK public say will affect future generations is MYOPIC.
You asked for a suitable alternative, spindrift.
A suitable alternative candidate would be lucid, he/she would have the ability to take the long view and would be someone who works constructively with government to confront the very real ecological imperatives of our age.
Report abuse
Huw, I have been cycling regulary since a child and the majority of those miles on country roads and 60/ 70 mph limits .I have never felt more threatened on them than 40 mph roads so it doesn’t really matter to me what speed limit the roads are but the amount of potholes and silly man made obstacles which narrow the roads are a danger. A cyclist was knocked off his bike in Aquaduct this week, a 40 mph limit but the road design is so idiotic a child could have designed it better.
Report abuse
Hopefully Peter’s Group would encourage the highways planners to listen to the voice of the people who have to use these roads, not people from out of the county who sit at a desk all day and do not actually drive the roads that they are making less safe.
Report abuse
If, as a frequent cyclist, you can see no difference for your safety between a 40mph road and a 60/70mph road, then I am going to have to start questioning either your story or your lucidity, BRIAN(2).
At the moment, I would not say that the Drivers’ Alliance is scoring particularly well on the LUCIDITY front.
Do you think the Aquaduct cyclist would have preferred to have been knocked off in a 60/70mph zone or a 20mph zone, BRIAN(2)?
You say that ‘the road design is so idiotic a child could have designed it better.’
So let’s see how lucid you are.
What answer do you think a child would give to these questions?
Which speed limit would encourage more people to get on their bikes?
Which speed limit would be safer for all road users in built-up areas(including cars, cyclists and pedestrians)?
20mph or 60/70mph?
Come on, BRIAN(2). A child could answer this.
Report abuse
You are wrong to say that I am writing this from ‘out of the county’ BRIAN(2).
If you Google, you will see that I am a member of the Shropshire Green Party.
Report abuse
However, your point about me sitting at my desk while you are using the roads is –I have to concede -much stronger,BRIAN(2)
It’s a bit sad really, isn’t it?
We should be out together this weekend cycling on the Autobahn, laughing about people who believe in global warming and cracking jokes about people who think lower speed limits in built-up areas save children’s lives.
No BRIAN(2). I don’t do what I do, because I love sitting in front of my computer.
I do it because democracies need vigilant people, who stand up and say a clear NO to those organisations and anonymous bloggers, who are denying climate change.
And sustainable democracies need vigilant people to stand up to fake grassroots organisations, who claim that they are ‘representative of the average motorist’ or ‘lucid’.
As this debate has shown, and as any child reading this debate could tell you, both these claims are clearly ridiculous.
No child would want his parents to be represented by someone who claims that the transport debate has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.
And no child would believe your claim, BRIAN(2), that there is no difference between cycling in a 40mph zone or a 60/70 mph zone.
I sit at my desk to make sure you guys don’t get away with what you are trying to do.
Now how about that bike ride, BRIAN(2)? Any road will do. Someone I know said the speed limit on the road has got nothing to do with safety…
Report abuse
As it happens Huw the cyclist was knocked off by a car emerging from the junction at probably far less than 20 MPH so what was the fault…the layout of the junction restricting visibility. You are not a very experienced motorist or cyclist if you cannot cope with all roads with varying speed limits Huw. You are falling into the office bound “Know All” category that like to spout about every thing but has very little practical experience.
Hopefully Peter’s group will be able to change things so that office bound “know alls” don’t have the power to change things for the worse as they seem to be doing now.
Report abuse
Huw, your comments are becoming rather insulting to fellow postees. To do so purely because they do not subscribe to YOUR point of view and YOUR angle on this thread is indicative of the perennial keyboard warrior.
This has descended into an argument – unnecessarily – about MMGW, when the initial story posted by Star journos mentioned nothing of the sort. Myself and others have tried and failed to keep this on topic, and this proves that greenpeace fundamentalist attitudes do not, and never will, dovetail with any matter that involves the support of drivers.
What is more concerning is that environmental issues are being advocated by individuals who all too easily – when engaged in a debate – resort to inflammatory and faintly insulting diatribe similar to the rubbish and speciousness spouted by those who support speed cameras.
To conclude, Huw, you have not answered my question. You provided the qualities that a candidate for Drivers Alliance should possess. You have not provided a name. I therefore suspect that no such person exists that meets your criteria, and – as such – Peter Roberts is still the man for the job.
PS
Stop using capital letters in your posts. It’s bad form and makes the poster look a little desperate.
Report abuse
You are the one ,Huw , who doesn’t seem very clear on your beliefs. Firstly you say you agree with the Dutch scheme whereby a little danger is introduced into the system to encourage people to think for them selves then you go on about making all urban roads 20MPH, surely this is just the opposite of the Dutch idea? If everyone tootles along at 20 MPH where is the danger factor to keep people alert, you would probably find more cyclists getting knocked off as people would not be concentrating and as alert as if they would be travelling at sensible speeds. As for the dangers of cycling on main roads Huw, I feel sorry for you if this frightens you but I have never found it a problem. I have a friend who regularly cycles to Swansea to visit relatives and has never had an accident or commented on feeling unsafe. Most of my cycling has been on main roads between towns and my cousin has just come back from cycling round France with no mishaps. Maybe you just need to build up your confidence on a bicycle instead of trying to change the system to suit yourself.
Report abuse
Another point for you ,Huw.
You started this debate by spouting on about green issues, how can making all urban roads 20mph be good for emission levels? Do you not know that a car’s exhaust emits far more emissions per mile travelled at 20 mph than at 60MPH? Surely you must know that this is true Huw, even a child could tell you that.
As for asking a child whether he would prefer 20 MPH limits or 60 mph limits then I would expect the answer to be “5MPH everywhere, including motorways and lollipops growing on every grass verge” but thankfully children do not design roads (yet) and in the practical world of reality 5MPH limits and lollipop lined verges aren’t going to happen.
Report abuse
Just back from cycling along the M54 with the kids, BRIAN(2).
When I told the policeman, who arrested us what you had told me about there being no difference for safety in speeds, he didn’t seem that impressed with the lucidity of your arguments for some reason or other.
Report abuse
Seriously, though, BRIAN(2), you asked a question, which deserves a straight answer.
‘How can making all urban roads 20mph be good for emission levels?’
Because the vast majority of car journeys are short ones.
Because the 20mph speed limits will encourage more people to walk and cycle for those short journeys, because 20mph is safer than 60/70 mph (I know you dispute this, BRIAN(2), but I don’t regard your opinion as ‘representative’).
Because removing all those short car journeys will be good for combating congestion, and thereby good for cutting emissions.
Because 20mph speed limits will be good for encouraging kids to play outside or walk to school, removing even more traffic.
Do you remember that statistic I cited from the Daily Telegraph poll in Comment #20?
70% agreed that the Government should take the lead in combating climate change even if it means using the law to change people’s behaviour.
Report abuse
spindrift, you say that this debate has ‘descended’ into a debate about MMGW, as if climate change could not possibly have anything to do with the future of transport in this country and around the world.
The 41 institutions I quoted in Comment #18 (but -interestingly- neither of you have yet commented on) would say that the future of transport policy and the future of the environment are linked and that it is entirely legitimate –if not, vital- for vigilant citizens to raise the question, especially when it is being denied by blinkered, myopic, unrepresentative and irresponsible organisations like the Drivers’ Alliance.
When David Attenborough issues his ‘call to arms’ today (The Truth about Climate Change -on DVD), it’s going to inspire even more people like me, to stop you guys getting away with mis-representing the overwhelming science, and force you to respond to hard questions before you make your unfounded claims.
Listening to what these scientific institutions are telling us, and taking seriously what David Attenborough says, does not make us ‘fundamentalists’. However, it does clearly make us more lucid than you.
To be lucid, a person has to be capable of joined-up thinking. They have to be capable of making linkages.
Do you think that the ‘average motorist’ is going to be proud or embarrassed to be represented by people, who say fossil-fuelled transport and climate are unrelated?
And do you think the ‘average motorist’ is going to be proud or embarrassed to be represented by people, who cannot even follow their own advice on capital letters (see comment #37 paragraph #1).
I’m sorry if you find that last comment insulting, spindrift, but sometimes when debating with people who refuse to see things which are blindingly obvious, it is necessary to tell it like it is.
Report abuse
The reason I like the Drachten scheme, BRIAN(2), is because it is effective and practical.
It has been effective in bringing down speeds at a busy junction in an urban environment, and is popular with the road-users, all of who seem to respect each other.
I am interested in practical solutions with a proven success record, and think that the media should highlight them more so that good practice is shared and disseminated.
Report abuse
Huw, you are mad if you think that making all urban speed limits 20 mph will cause motorists to give up their cars even for short journies and it will do nothing but cause more pollution and possibly more accidents. As for encouraging people to walk and cycle safer, most urban envoirenments have cyle paths and footpaths any way so the speed limit on the roads shouldn’t encourage or didcourage walkers except in country lanes where incidently I have done most of my cycling with no fear of traffic passing me.
Just because I am not a confident swimmer I wouldn’t call for all swimming pools to be a max of 4 foot deep or all high diving boards to be banished which is what you are making claims along the same lines as. No I wouldn’t cycle on the M54, to suggest that is also very childish. As for suggesting you are from out of the county you misread that. I was saying that some of the office bound highways planners live out of county and only commute in and out and have no idea what effect they are having on local roads.
The Dutch idea is very good and I am in favour of reducing accidents but a blanket cover of 20MPH isn’t going to work because even when there was a speed limit of 4MPH there were still fatalities. I believe every one wants to be greener and save the envoirenment but the greens will never get a decent vote so long as they want to kill off motoring.
Report abuse
I have made no unfounded claims whatsoever on the subject of climate change on this discussion, Huw and for you to purport so is very disingenuous.
I will repeat the question you have continually evaded answering, though:
Do you have a specific person in mind for fronting Drivers Alliance in lieu of Peter Roberts? I am asking for names. Not personal qualities.
Report abuse
Brian, I have a car myself and I totally accept that car ownership is an important part of most people’s lives.
I can also see that it is vital for your job, and can understand your frustration with congestion.
My starting point in this debate is different, however.
I can see, knowing what we know about the scientific consensus on climate change, that carrying on building roads and clearing people, woodland et al to make way for more and more cars is not the way to go.
A VOICE for motorists has to be connected to EYES, EARS and a BRAIN. Denying transport’s impact on climate change is not an option any more.
In fact, it is utterly irresponsible.
You also say many things which are patently not true if you study our policies (available on the Green Party website).
Greens are not proposing to ‘kill off motoring’. Nor are we proposing to empty swimming pools, ban high diving boards, introduce 5MPH speed limits on motorways or grow lollipops on every grass verge.
Please could you engage with the proposals that we are actually making, rather than build up straw men arguments?
Let’s keep talking about the Drachten experiment and the idea of SHARED SPACE, where all road-users show courtesy and respect for each other.
Report abuse
UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
Spindrift, you claim in Comment #23 that there are 2 ‘sides of the fence’.
However, this is false, if you are looking at the SCIENCE of climate change.
On the one side is the scientific consensus.
On the other side is an army of perennial keyboard warriors and fake grassroots organisations (like the Drivers’ Alliance, Safe Speed and the Association of British Drivers) fed on a diet of right-wing blogs and oil-company funded websites, which deny what David Attenborough refers to as the truth about climate change.
If the above is not the case, then I challenge you to name ONE scientific institution, which disputes man-made global warming, spindrift.
In another debate on the Shropshire Star site (http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/10/hundreds-air-views-on-wind-farm/ (Comment #18) I challenged ‘Laurence’, who was pushing the lie that ‘the majority [of scientific institutions] do not yet support MMGW’, to name just one of them.
Of course, Laurence couldn’t name a single one and –like askeric.com in this debate- disappeared from the debate, when he was asked to substantiate his views.
What do you think about Laurence’s silence in the face of this challenge, spindrift?
What conclusions do you think other readers might draw from your silence on the 41 institutions I quoted in comment #18 or your insistence that the science of climate change could not possibly have anything to do with transport policy?
Can you name a single scientific institution, which disputes man-made global warming, spindrift?
Readers will definitely expect a convincing answer.
Otherwise, we will have to study your preposterous comment in Comment #23 again. (‘I do read and digest comments from both sides of the fence as I feel I should do so. Both sides table strong arguments that – to me – are equally convincing, yet do not sway me either way.’)
And we will then have to conclude that it is you, who are being disingenuous.
Report abuse
It’s not up to me to provide an alternative, spindrift.
It’s up to the Drivers’ Alliance to face facts.
The Drivers’ Alliance will not be taken seriously by anyone in a discussion on transport policy, while its chief spokesman and blogging supporters deny the truth about climate change.
Unless Peter Roberts publicly changes his mind on this vital subject, the Shropshire Green Party refuses to keep quiet about this.
Maybe he could join the debate and clarify what his views are.
Report abuse
Who is the right person to front Drivers Alliance, Huw?
You maintain that Peter Roberts is not the right person to do so, so clearly you must have someone else in mind.
Who do you suggest as an alternative?
Report abuse
As I said above in Comment #48, spindrift, the point that I am making here is that the Drivers’ Alliance cannot possibly expect to be treated as ‘representative’ in the transport debate while this organisation denies the scientific truth about climate change.
That, in a nutshell, is what I think is wrong with Peter Roberts being the spokesman of this organisation.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I think the Drivers’ Alliance cannot claim to be ‘representative’.
If Peter Roberts joins the debate and clarifies where he stands on climate change, then perhaps I will not be so insistent on this vital point.
If he does not, then readers will draw their own conclusions on your/his eloquent refusal to engage with this argument.
Report abuse
An alternative to Peter, Huw?
Report abuse
You suggested in comment #13 Steve Cropley, Georg Kacher, Colin Goodwin and Martin Buckley, spindrift.
After Googling them on the internet, it does not seem –as far as I can see- that they have any history of climate change denial, so my objections above would not apply to them.
What do you think of Richard Bremner of Clean Green Cars, by the way?
Peter Roberts ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ ) or anyone in the dangerous and completely unrepresentative ABD (Association of British Drivers) or Safe Speed have zero credibility after their fraudulent distortions of the climate change and road safety debate.
I recommend this highly informative article from the Guardian, Tuesday February 3, 2004, if you are keen to find out more about ABD (‘They call themselves the voice of the driver. But who do they really represent?’).
Report abuse
Right, spindrift, I’ve answered your question.
Now it’s your turn to answer my question challenging your claim that there are ‘two sides of the fence’, when it comes to the truth about climate change.
Could you name ONE scientific institution, which disputes man-made global warming?
Report abuse
And if you cannot answer it, spindrift, perhaps Peter Roberts could…
Report abuse