Good day my good friend.
I apologise now. My language in this newsletter is somewhat forthright from reading this UK Government consultation document, and I intend to respond with some righteous fury. So enjoy it!
A Public Service Announcement ahead of the next couple of weeks for you all. As it is the Easter holiday period over the coming weeks in the UK, I will not be posting any newsletter either next Friday (29th March) or on the following Monday (1st April). As it will be nice to take a little breather again. Normal service will resume again on 3rd April.
If you like this newsletter, please share it with someone else who you think will love it. The main way my audience grows is through your recommendations. I will love you forever if you do. 😍
👓 Policy by optics
Oh for God’s sake. Just when you think the idiots in charge of the UK have their heads somewhat screwed on for 5 minutes, up pops a complete brain fart that makes you wonder whether this is working brain cell on the 5th Floor of Great Minster House. I am talking, of course, about the Government’s consultation on Restricting the generation of surplus funds from traffic contraventions. A document so uniquely bad and devoid of thought it looks like it was crafted by those who authored Network North. Which is harsh, as I know DfT officials had a hand in writing this consultation document and no doubt they reigned in some of the crazy.
Anyway, lets start at the foreword.
Councils have powers to enforce traffic regulations in order to ensure that our roads are safe for all users and that people can move about without undue interference. They are not an alternative way for local councillors to raise taxes, or decide who gets to travel where.
This call for evidence looks at an issue that even good councils, doing the right thing, are sometimes accused of – the suggestion that traffic management measures with penalty fees attached are there to raise money from motorists more than anything else.
I want to hear the views of local councils, but also motorists, motoring organisations and the public in general on this issue.
Should government remove any suggestion there is a “profit motive” for local councils – such as by requiring any surpluses that councils might generate from new charges to be repaid to His Majesty’s Treasury – after the costs of enforcement have been repaid?
This seems an appealing solution – and is effectively how speeding fines operate already – but are there unexpected considerations that we should be considering?
I would encourage everyone with an interest to have your say and ensure your thoughts are taken into account.
The cat is out of the bag immediately, with the Secretary of State for Transport saying that they are doing this because issues about Council’s making ‘profits’ generates a few difficult articles in the Daily Mail. And is not based on things like, you know, evidence.
Continuing with the introduction:
…enforcement must be undertaken proportionately and not used as a means to raise revenue.
There is one problem with this statement. Its literally illegal for Council’s to do this. And where it isn’t illegal, its against government guidance, and any surpluses must be reinvested. Or in the case of speeding fines, it goes to the government who have decided that its quite right that it should profit from people breaking the law. And apparently this is data that the Treasury cannot share with us mere mortals.
In London alone, more than 7 million PCNs were issued in the year ending March 2022, but in the 40,000-plus cases where drivers appealed, just under half (43%) were overturned.
This a half-truth. 43% of PCN appeals were allowed, meaning that there may be ground to overturn the PCN if the drivers contested. This is because the same dataset says that 51% of those appeals were not contested. Also it ignores the fact that the majority of appeals were refused, and it is just for London for where practice varies wildly.
Then you get into the list of questions, of which 30 are for local authorities and are what only can be described as an attempt at a research exercise. These include:
6. For your most recent financial accounts, how much (a) income, (b) expenditure and (c) surplus or deficit was allocated to:
- all civil traffic enforcement
- moving traffic enforcement (including yellow box junctions)
- yellow box junctions enforcement only
- bus lane enforcement
- parking enforcement
9. For your 2019 to 2020 financial accounts, how much (a) income, (b) expenditure and (c) surplus or deficit was allocated to:
- all civil traffic enforcement
- moving traffic enforcement (including yellow box junctions)
- yellow box junctions enforcement only
- bus lane enforcement
- parking enforcement
18. What are the reasons for your local authority making a surplus?
21. For each financial year within your medium-term financial strategy, describe whether you expect your civil traffic enforcement activities to deliver an overall:
surplus
deficit
neither surplus nor deficit (cost neutral)
Explain your answer.
33. How lenient do you feel your local authority is when conducting parking enforcement?
You want to know how to get these answers? Do an actual research project! Literally ask for these answers from local authorities. Don’t try to compel them through an open call.
When it comes to actual questions about fairness, the following questions are asked.
38. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that moving traffic enforcement was fair, describe how moving traffic enforcement could be made fairer.
39. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that yellow box junction enforcement was fair, describe how yellow box junction enforcement could be made fairer.
40. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that bus lane enforcement was fair, describe how bus lane enforcement could be made fairer.
41. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that parking enforcement was fair, describe how parking enforcement could be made fairer
No such questions are asked if you answered that you thought it was fair. So the case for why thinks are ok, actually, cannot be made by anyone at any point.
44. Do you have ideas for restricting a local authority’s ability to generate surpluses from traffic contraventions?
I have one, enforce the existing legislation because it is fine.
45. Describe any ideas you have for measures that would help drivers comply with moving traffic, yellow box junction, bus lane or parking restrictions.
Double the fines, but allow the first contravention by any vehicle to be a warning. Then go from there.
Words cannot really describe not just the stupidity, but the sheer blantantness behind what is proposed by this call for evidence. All to seek a narrative that Councils are being greedy at the expense of the poor, innocent, law-abiding (🤣) motorist. This needs to be sent back from whence it came, and quickly.
What you can do: Read the document online, and submit a response to the online survey. Do it politely, but hit home like the fist of an angry God.
👩🎓 From academia
The clever clogs at our universities have published the following excellent research. Where you are unable to access the research, email the author – they may give you a copy of the research paper for free.
TL:DR – A lot of factors affect people’s perceptions of congestion. Notably, whether or not they experienced congestion on a previous trip.
TL:DR – Whether or not you cross in the presence of vehicles in determined to a large degree if people close to you do the same (or don’t).
“Winner” versus “loser” streets? Pedestrianisation and intra-neighbourhood equity
TL:DR – The social consequences of pedestrianisation is complex. While they may be good at tackling some inequities, beware gentrification.
TL:DR – Digital innovation and making sure the food supply chain doesn’t collapse are the priorities.
✊ Amazing people doing amazing things
Sometimes the parental instinct just kicks in. As it did for bus driver Keyon Finkley. Seeing a child in pyjamas run into the street, he stopped, comforted the child, and took them on board the bus until the police arrived. Now that is something amazing.
📆 Calendar Invite
On 21st May, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transport, Transport Planning Network, and Transport Planning Society are running a joint event on Transport and Land Use Planning at the Steam Museum of the Great Western Railway in Swindon. If you care about how land use and transport planning should work together, you should be there. I know I will.
📺 On the (You)Tube
Before we had trains, and before we built the highway network, the rivers were the motorways of our world. And they still affect the communities which rely on them, even in transport terms. As this excellent video of the Mississippi River shows.
🖼 Graphic Design
Mapping Global Happiness Levels (Source: Visual Capitalist)
This is where the Scandinavians gloat. Again. But honestly, something we should be doing in transport is trying to make the world happy. So maps like this may be useful.
📚 Random Things
These links are meant to make you think about the things that affect our world in transport, and not just think about transport itself. I hope that you enjoy them.
- Apple lawsuit: US accuses tech giant of monopolising smartphone market (BBC News)
- Without realising it, Britain has become a nation of immigrants (The Economist)
- I Don’t Believe In Growth (Tax Research)
- Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory (Nature)
- How Capitalism Became a Threat to Democracy (Project Syndicate)
📰 The bottom of the news
Driving in the UK is…an experience lets say that. When an American family proposed an itinerary that involved a week in the UK that basically consisted of driving everywhere, it caused a fair bit of fuss. Well, they only went and did it. I’m sorry to my American readers, but I have no concept of how essentially spending a day driving everywhere makes for a good trip.
👍 Your feedback is essential
I want to make the calls to actions better. To do this, I need your feedback. Just fill in the 3 question survey form by clicking on the below button to provide me with quick feedback, that I can put into action. Thank you so much.
Mobility Matters 