Government Plan for Drivers

[geoffk]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plan-for-drivers/the-plan-for-drivers

The plan for drivers

www.gov.uk

Anyone read this? A worrying development. We risk going backwards on bus priority, encouraging active travel, reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality. This paper seems to place cars at the centre of transport planning and contradicts other policies that encourage sustainable transport. Of course it all started with the perception that opposition to ULEZ influenced the result of the Uxbridge by-election. But yesterday there were two more!

This shows just how far down the road of conspiracy theories and culture wars this Government has gone.

The opening paragraph sets the scene - "There’s nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car and, for many, life would not be liveable without their car. For those in rural areas, it is a lifeline. A car can hugely expand the independence of a younger person, as well as keep older people connected to key services and their families."

 

[bramling]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plan-for-drivers/the-plan-for-drivers

The plan for drivers

www.gov.uk

Anyone read this? A worrying development. We risk going backwards on bus priority, encouraging active travel, reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality. This paper seems to place cars at the centre of transport planning and contradicts other policies that encourage sustainable transport. Of course it all started with the perception that opposition to ULEZ influenced the result of the Uxbridge by-election. But yesterday there were two more!

This shows just how far down the road of conspiracy theories and culture wars this Government has gone.

The opening paragraph sets the scene - "There’s nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car and, for many, life would not be liveable without their car. For those in rural areas, it is a lifeline. A car can hugely expand the independence of a younger person, as well as keep older people connected to key services and their families."

Must admit the whole thing seems surprisingly sensible to me, which is a miracle from this government. Anyone would think they’re in panic mode after losing a by-election!

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory nor a culture war, just responding to what a majority of people would actually like to see. Begs the question as to why it has taken them 13 years.

 

[SynthD]

Foreword​

There’s nothing wrong with driving.

Yes, it’s culture war bs.

As with other distractions we’ve heard recently, this includes a lot of previously announced plans in more sensible areas, such as moving away from petrol and diesel. What little is new here is more a political topic than a general transport topic.

 

[renegademaster]

I don't really see much wrong with it. It's not blanket banning bus lanes , LTNs or 20 zones. For bus lanes it just says that it's got to be shown that traffic is slowing down buses where they are placed, and for the other two you have got to have local consent for the schemes.

 

[Sorcerer]

Whether or not there is anything wrong with driving is arguable, but the real issue is the "Most of us use a car and, for many, life would not be liveable without their car. For those in rural areas, it is a lifeline" part. Car dependency is not something we should strive to enable. Improve the roads wherever necessary of course, nobody will argue that, but let us try to also move away from making life unliveable without cars.

 

[jon81uk]

If an urban or suburban area is not liveable without a car then it is poor planning and management by the government and council regarding public transport that is the issue. Car ownership shouldn't be the goal.

 

[DC1989]

Just the usual bs. Most drive because they have to. Locking people into car dependence and all of the costs that come associated with that is neither freedom (It's the exact opposite!) nor helpful to the working class (Due to costs)

Why should a nurse in Norwich have to pay thousands of pounds per year to use a car to get to work whilst a nurse in Nunhead can pay pennies to get a bus

Of course it's true though that many with a car, even on very low incomes, don't see themselves as being a 'victim' of this. They just see the car as the natural order of things, you wake up, s**t, shower and drive to work. So they do kickback against things like parking fines, ULEZ etc rather than the fact they are de facto forced into paying for a car in the first place

 

[renegademaster]

Just the usual bs. Most drive because they have to. Locking people into car dependence and all of the costs that come associated with that is neither freedom (It's the exact opposite!) nor helpful to the working class (Due to costs)

Why should a nurse in Norwich have to pay thousands of pounds per year to use a car to get to work whilst a nurse in Nunhead can pay pennies to get a bus

Of course it's true though that many with a car, even on very low incomes, don't see themselves as being a 'victim' of this. They just see the car as the natural order of things, you wake up, s**t, shower and drive to work. So they do kickback against things like parking fines, ULEZ etc rather than the fact they are de facto forced into paying for a car in the first place

Parking fines and ULEZ aren't going to make public transport any easier for them, it is kinda understandable and rational that they would kick back against it if that is all they are seeing from the local authorities implementing it. And some people just like cars

 

[SynthD]

ULEZ will make public transport easier, as all ULEZ income is spent on public transport. This is the case in London, and I hope it is elsewhere.

 

[bramling]

Just the usual bs. Most drive because they have to. Locking people into car dependence and all of the costs that come associated with that is neither freedom (It's the exact opposite!) nor helpful to the working class (Due to costs)

Why should a nurse in Norwich have to pay thousands of pounds per year to use a car to get to work whilst a nurse in Nunhead can pay pennies to get a bus

Of course it's true though that many with a car, even on very low incomes, don't see themselves as being a 'victim' of this. They just see the car as the natural order of things, you wake up, s**t, shower and drive to work. So they do kickback against things like parking fines, ULEZ etc rather than the fact they are de facto forced into paying for a car in the first place

In most cases it will be because people *want* to use the car for work. Whilst there are undoubtedly situations where travelling by bus is the most expedient choice for a particular journey, in most cases it isn’t. Personally I would simply not be prepared to use a bus for my own journey to work, and I’m sure that applies to the majority of people.

If it’s considered a good thing to encourage people to use alternatives to the car (which I don’t disagree with in principle), directing resources and money at bus travel is simply a waste of time. Personally I’d rather see money go towards decent foot / cycle paths (for example on disused railway alignments) or expanding rail capacity.

 

[geoffk]

Our European neighbours also have high levels of car ownership, in some cases higher than ours, but they seem much more willing to use alternatives when travelling in cities. Also we have the "school run", which seems to be a uniquely British institution and a major cause of peak-hour congestion.

 

[DC1989]

In most cases it will be because people *want* to use the car for work. Whilst there are undoubtedly situations where travelling by bus is the most expedient choice for a particular journey, in most cases it isn’t. Personally I would simply not be prepared to use a bus for my own journey to work, and I’m sure that applies to the majority of people.

If it’s considered a good thing to encourage people to use alternatives to the car (which I don’t disagree with in principle), directing resources and money at bus travel is simply a waste of time. Personally I’d rather see money go towards decent foot / cycle paths (for example on disused railway alignments) or expanding rail capacity.

Hmm not sure about this.. what makes the population of London so different from the rest of the country that only they do not want to use the car for work? Especially considering how London imports people in their early 20's from all corners of the country (Who probably drive before leaving) who then spend 10 years not driving and then finally spits back out there where they drive again. Why in those 10 years only would they suddenly not *want* to drive

 

[geoffk]

Hmm not sure about this.. what makes the population of London so different from the rest of the country that only they do not want to use the car for work? Especially considering how London imports people in their early 20's from all corners of the country (Who probably drive before leaving) who then spend 10 years not driving and then finally spits back out there where they drive again. Why in those 10 years only would they suddenly not *want* to drive by

Because London has, by UK standards, an excellent public transport service which Londoners are able to navigate easily by virtue of the information and ticketing systems. Because owning a car in London (at least in the central area) means finding somewhere to park it and this will have to be paid for. Also walking and cycling are encouraged by public policy. These conditions don't apply in any other UK city, where driving is relatively easy and where public transport is often fragmented and relatively infrequent.

 

[DC1989]

Because London has, by UK standards, an excellent public transport service which Londoners are able to navigate easily by virtue of the information and ticketing systems. Because owning a car in London (at least in the central area) means finding somewhere to park it and this will have to be paid for. Also walking and cycling are encouraged by public policy. These conditions don't apply in any other UK city, where driving is relatively easy and where public transport is often fragmented and relatively infrequent.

Exactly - I agree. But the point I was replying to seemed to be that it wasn't to do with any of that. It's simply because people *want* to. I think London proves the point. New York even more so considering American's driving culture is even worse than ours !

I agree with many of the aggrieved motorists that's there's a whole lot of stick but not much carrot. But for the government to cancel the biggest transport infrastructure project in decades and then have the temerity to issue a 'plan for drivers' at the same time, and then to say they are 'bruised' that they didn't get a bounce in the polls for doing so and then say they are using the HS2 money to cap bus fares at £2.00 for one year (Capex to opex reallocated in a couple of weeks) shows me this isn't a serious government. It's just pure unadulterated electioneering bs with no substance.

The government have cancelled the carrot and have some vague promises of less stick. I can pretty much guarantee that in a years time all of their promises would have come to nothing and can state confidently that

There will be more LTN's than today
There will be more bus lanes than today
There will be more pot holes than today
There will be more PCN's issued than today
There will be more 20mph roads than today
There will be no centralised government parking app (Actually this is their only good idea and has probably been planned long before Rishi)

 

[johncrossley]

Before I waste time reading this, does it actually explain what laws they are going to change and how they are going to block schemes by local authorities which are already funded? If not, it is just rhetoric and in practice will mean nothing.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

And I'm hearing/reading that insurance companies are allowed to raise their premiums massively. Why aren't the government regulating/intervening?

 

[johncrossley]

And I'm hearing/reading that insurance companies are allowed to raise their premiums massively. Why aren't the government regulating/intervening?

It is no different to why the government isn't regulating supermarket prices. Competition should keep prices as low as possible. If there is a cartel then we already have a regulator to deal with that.

 

[stuu]

And I'm hearing/reading that insurance companies are allowed to raise their premiums massively. Why aren't the government regulating/intervening?

If their costs have gone up massively, what other response is there?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If their costs have gone up massively, what other response is there?

I don't understand your question

 

[johncrossley]

I don't understand your question

If the insurance companies have to pay out more than they did before then they have no choice but to increase their premiums. If they were just putting up prices to make higher profits then another company could undercut to grab business.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If the insurance companies have to pay out more than they did before then they have no choice but to increase their premiums. If they were just putting up prices to make higher profits then another company could undercut to grab business.

All very well but having never been liable for an accident, why should I pay more for other people's mishaps? Seems like careful drivers and many years' no claims surmount to nothing now it seems

 

[SynthD]

If there is a cartel then we already have a regulator to deal with that.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2023/october-2023/lords-committee-to-scrutinise-relationship-between-regulators-and-the-government/

The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has announced that its next inquiry will focus on the relationship between regulators and the Government, and how regulators are held accountable, including by Parliament.
The Committee is encouraging interested individuals and organisations to submit evidence on the following areas:

• the roles and remits of regulators;
• the balance between the responsibilities of regulators and those of the Government;
• guidance given by the government to regulators;
• the independence of regulators;
• co-operation between regulators; ...

Various non-political roles, such as head of regulators, have been filled with political appointees. This affects the service the regulator provides to the country.

 

[johncrossley]

All very well but having never been liable for an accident, why should I pay more for other people's mishaps? Seems like careful drivers and many years' no claims surmount to nothing now it seems

But if you do have an accident in the future the costs involved may be more than they were before. Accident prone drivers already pay more than drivers who don't claim. Motoring costs are supposed to be paid out of your own pocket so you can't expect the government to subsidise your premium, for example by capping premiums at £2,000 a year. If you can't afford to drive then it is tough. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

But if you do have an accident in the future the costs involved may be more than they were before. Accident prone drivers already pay more than drivers who don't claim. Motoring costs are supposed to be paid out of your own pocket so you can't expect the government to subsidise your premium, for example by capping premiums at £2,000 a year. If you can't afford to drive then it is tough. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

I respectfully beg to differ on this but we're going OT

 

[jon81uk]

I respectfully beg to differ on this but we're going OT

Driving is definitely a privilege. Its not like access to running water or electricity or a basic bank account. Its a luxury.

 

[DC1989]

This is another reason why many motorists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces in regards to opposition to lower speed limits and driving bans etc. More 20mph roads = less accidents = lower insurance. Actual driving bans/prison sentences for bad/aggressive/killer/drunk drivers = less accidents = lower insurance

 

[Kite159]

This is another reason why many motorists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces in regards to opposition to lower speed limits and driving bans etc. More 20mph roads = less accidents = lower insurance. Actual driving bans/prison sentences for bad/aggressive/killer/drunk drivers = less accidents = lower insurance

Or knowing insurance companies same level of insurance. They are about as trustful as supermarkets & energy companies in not trying to rip customers off.

 

[bramling]

All very well but having never been liable for an accident, why should I pay more for other people's mishaps? Seems like careful drivers and many years' no claims surmount to nothing now it seems

This is essentially the reality of inflation, and why inflation is very difficult to check once it becomes embedded.

 

[greyman42]

Or knowing insurance companies same level of insurance. They are about as trustful as supermarkets & energy companies in not trying to rip customers off.

I read recently that insurance for EV's is going to be problematic?

 

[OscarH]

If their costs have gone up massively, what other response is there?

The question then is whether they really have gone up quite as much as the premiums have, or whether it's gone up some portion of that, and they've realised they can whack it up more under the same excuse. Maybe their costs have gone up disproportionately, or maybe they haven't, they're hardly a reputable bunch, so we're reliant completely on whether the regulator is effective