Just when you thought it was safe to go driving again without being repeatedly photographed - with news breaking this week that the government has put national road pricing on the back burner - the nanny state lobby has bounced back off the ropes with ambitious new plans. The 'casts and sheets this morning are full of a new …
Drive fast, die young
You die, you're dead, end of problem. You don't die, you get to drive around at 20mph, you go crazy, you start voting with The Sun, all immigrents are banned, taxes are lowered, public spending is increased and you eventually die crazy, on the street, alone, at 60 of neglect.
Forget speed limits
How about keeping kids off the roads?
How about teaching people road safety again?
Making roads safer by having railings and proper crossings.
Cars drive along roads, drivers don't deliberately hit people, pedestrians are the ones who often make mistakes.
firstly i see they want to make the roads safer for cyclists.... is this the same cyclists who choose to ignore traffic lights and just do as they please??? or are the police going to crack down on that as well??
then i can do 20mph and still kill someone.. just mount the pathway and mow as many as i like down.. least im sticking to the speed limit eh!
what the government should be doing is spending more money on teaching road safety to kids (like they used to in the 70s when i was a kid) and also put a limit on the size engine new drivers can use (like motorbike rules), seeing as a 17yr old muppet with no expereince can get into any high powered car having no idea how to drive at any speed and kill.
this governent sucks and they wont stop till were all on those crap bendy busses that 1. catch fire or 2. end up killing you by running you over !!
Why not target the real problem with urban road deaths
The real problem is not drivers travelling at excessive speed, but with idiots who think the road belongs to pedestrians. If I drive my car along the pavement, then I will get into trouble. Therefore if kids coming home from school walk on the road, they too should get into trouble.
I have to pay due care and attention when driving along, why shouldn't pedestrians have the same level of responsibility.
If you end up on the road, and get hit by a car, van, lorry, vintage steam roller, then that should be your fault, not the drivers. Why are we seen to be the bad guys all the time?
When will they learn
The problem of driving is not a case of bullying road users to follow the rules as recent history has proven you put speed cameras up people speed between camera's and install widgets to detect cameras.
IMO they should be tougher on drivers who break the law in that more minor offences should result in a driving ban, and people who have to retake a driving test should be given a tougher test than they orginally took.
Currently in the UK your better off killing someone in a car than in any other way, and you stand a good chance of getting off.
News to me. Where does one find these?
Is he serious?
""We are living in a period when central government appears reluctant to regulate unless absolutely necessary."
Ahahahahahaha. Ahahaha. Ha. Ha.
Oh dear God. He appears to be serious.
Swings and roundabouts
So, how many people will the extra pollution from driving at 20mph instead of 30mph kill? How much more road-rage will there be from being forced to go more slowly than appropriate for the road conditions? How much extra money will the government take from us with the increased fuel consumption?
And if I were to be cynical...
'We are living in a period when central government appears reluctant to regulate unless absolutely necessary.'
I'll have a pint / tab / gramme / eighth of what he's on please, because he has at best only a passing acquaintance with the real world so it must be good stuff.
Why not ...
... bring back the man carrying a red flag and be done with it?
numberplate-reading average speed kit...
Gifford, you’ll be first up against the wall come the revolution!!!
Pass me the tinfoil hat!
Inappropriate blanket limits
So the default urban speed limit becomes 20 MPH. So a straight road wide enough for four lanes but marked as 2, with 20yards of verge on one side and an elevated footpath on the other will be limited at 30mph slower than it's safe on a fine summer's pre-dawn. Instead of 20 mph slower nowadays.
Speed limits are an exercise in compromise. Local authorities don't appear to be equipped to make those compromises.
A 30 mph limit on a residential side street with cars parked both sides is probably too fast. Small children aren't visible past the sight-blocks. People should be taught to drive within their, the environent's and their vehicle's limits and the punishment should reflect the circumstances. With the current revenue-collection mindset, though, one size is being made to fit all, and that's just rubbish.
But what will happen to all those drivers around who insist on doing -20mph of the posted limits?
So does this mean that.....
Tractors will finally be capable of "speeding" offences lol!
The police don't help.
Last night I followed a police car. It was very obviously not on an emergency call, as it had no flashing lights and was travelling within the speed limit.
Yet in the space of 200 yards, that police car passed TWO cyclists driving without lights, and ONE that was driving at speed on the pavement which is definitely pedestrian-only in that area.
So long as we have incompetent police officers like this, failing to do the job they are paid for and ARREST these miscreants, we will have people being killed through a combination of their own stupidity and police incompetence.
Abolish some of the excessive police paperwork, increase the fines to a sensible level, build a few more prisons to take care of repeat offenders, make police pay dependent on NOT pretending to miss reckless driving like this and sort out proper cycle lanes not just lines in the road and we will not need unnecessarily low speed limits.
design out crime
"we should aim to design out road use conflicts in the same way as we can design out crime"
And just how has that "designing out crime" worked for you?
Why have road deaths fallen?
Unfortunately, it's mostly because cyclists have been forced off the road and parents are too scared to let their children walk to school. As a result, people have a reduced quality of life and are using cars instead, which increases pollution.
I think that in the UK more people are killed by pollution from cars than by collisions involving cars.
There's no point in reducing "road deaths" while increasing "pollution deaths" by a greater amount.
I would guess that 20 mph speed limits would help a bit.
"target of no more than 1,000 UK road deaths annually by 2030". No problem then. The oil's gonna run out in 2012 so there won't be more than a handful of milkfloats around in 2030.
"Cars drive along roads, drivers don't deliberately hit people, pedestrians are the ones who often make mistakes."
Yes, it's the peds fault people STILL use mobile phones while driving, eat while driving, smoke while driving, put their effing make up on while driving... then blame the ped with: "oh but he stepped into the road without looking! I wasn't using my mobile, honest... look I own a handsfree kit, it's right under that half eaten piece of pizza sticking out of my makeup bag. Which I dropped and got stuck under the brake pedal.".
Granted there are enough dumb pedestrians who won't always look when crossing the road but still it is the responsibility of the person in control of the vehicle to spot unlikely and sudden hazards in the carriageway and act accordingly. If that means planting your car into a lamppost to avoid killing a dumb pedestrian then so be it - I'm sure the ped (and your conscience) will be glad you're sharp enough to react in time and save a life.
And while we're at it... damn drivers should learn to read road signs. Stick the the speed limit, STOP at the STOP sign, and learn to use f**king indicators!
I feel enlightened all of a sudden. I think i'll celebrate by jaywalking through the city centre during rush hour.
Bring back the Green Cross Code.
One of the more recent speed reduction adds shows a car in side profile slamming it's brakes on in black and white slo-mo. The voice over says something along the lines of, "At 30mph the car would stop here" *Freezeframe* "At 40 mph it stops here" slo-mo continues and car hits child in road.
However, if you watch the child from the beginning of the ad, you can see him run out into the road without even glancing sideways to see the oncoming traffic. This accident was clearly the fault of the child.
I propose hitting small children with a lightweight metal pole (maybe from a tent). Then, explain that cars are also made out of metal and they live on roads so stay out of the damn road or get hit by a car!
He wants to make it even worse!
It's bad enough without fewer people dying on the roads. Do away with speed limits everywhere, that's what I say, sort out the pension crisis in a few short months.
Average speed cameras may be fine for straight-line non stop journeys on motorways, but I'm not sure how an urban average speed limit will limit top speeds to anything like 20mph unless taken between relatively close points (like all entrances to a small residential area).
In much of London and similar places, I'd assume the average speed is rather less than 20mph even where traffic is hitting 30-35mph between lights.
"With all that we currently know about urban design, we should aim to design out road use conflicts in the same way as we can design out crime.
When we also remember that road deaths amount to 82 per cent of all accidental deaths for those under 20, there still remains plenty for us to do."
These go with the 'Govt. unwilling to to regulate" quite well.
How & where have we 'designed out crime'? We have already designed out road use conflicts by having cars on a thing called a road, and pedestrians on a thing called a pavement (or sidewalk, if you're a visitor here).
Yes, roads deaths kill more people under 20 than anything else, but that's because hardly anything kills anyone under 20. It's surprising to me that stupidity doesn't weed out a few more, but I guess walking in front of a car ON A ROAD probably qualifies.
20mph? It's pretty easy to hit 20mph on a bike, and you have no speedo. So, are cyclists going to be immune to this law? Oh, that'll be fun...
Percentage of Accidental deaths...
"When we also remember that road deaths amount to 82 per cent of all accidental deaths for those under 20, there still remains plenty for us to do."
Increasing the number of people under the age of 20 killed by other means would be what he means, at a guess?
I wish people would refrain from quoting statistics unless they understand what they mean...
When will all those speed loving idiots realise that driving slower has virtually no impact on how long it take to get anywhere. If you drive 70 miles at 70mph it takes you an hour. Drive those 70 miles at 60mph it takes you 10 minutes longer - big deal.
At 'urban speeds' the difference in time taken to get anywhere by driving 10mph slower is even less noticable, and when you take into account traffic lights and congestion you're probably looking at saving a few measly minutes on the 'average journey'.
At slower speeds you're less likely to kill someone - if those measly extra minutes can be transformed into a few less pointless deaths I'm all for it. Anyone against?
Re: Andy's (and other's) utter rubbish
Oh dear Andy - it must be awful for you to witness the occasional cyclist shooting a red light (cars, vans and lorries never do of course) and pedestrian jay walking (cars, vans and lorries only ever drive where they are supposed to with due care and attention to other road users of course). Would you like some therapy perhaps?
Or perhaps you could wake up and smell the coffee: pedestrians and cyclists are killed and injured in large numbers by motor vehicles on our roads every year, large numbers of motorists are NOT killed or injured by pedestrians or cyclists on our roads every year. These deats and injuries are STATISTICALLY (i.e. not one off Daily Wail hysteria) caused in the large majority of cases by poor driving by motorists.
On a less flameworthy note the use of technical enforcement of low speeds in urban areas by cameras etc. seems less likely to be effective than altering the structure of our urban streets to blur the boundaries between road and pavement as it is in cities like Amsterdam (and has been experimented with in Kensington I believe): this leads to a much more co-operativeand less aggressive culture between road users who have to negotiate their progress and be much more aware of everyone else around them. And no I haven't been smoking anything :p~
... if I may make so bold. Educating people out of the mindset that 3000 deaths per year is ok, is going to be one of the major challenges of our lifetime.
He's off his rocker. I have better things to do than drive through a village with 12 people in it doing 20mph at 10:30 at night after being at the office since 6:00 in the morning.
Speed doesn't kill - stupidity on the roads does. If someone speeds then they are more likely to kill than if they were doing their stupid driving slowly. So why penalise everyone when we should just be weeding out the dickheads who can't drive.
1. Driving test must be taken every 10 years, however you can take it again from 8 years onwards to ensure there's enough time to get rid of the cobwebs.
2. When you have your bus pass handed to you, the above changes to every 5 years.
3. If you don't pay road tax you can't use the road. Sorry cyclists, pay up or sod off - I've got 2 litres and a deadline to meet. What do you think will happen when you cut me up at a roundabout.
4. Better management for slower vehicles. E.G. Tractors and possibly lorries can only travel outside of mainstream hours. Thus not allowed between 8:00am and 10am, and again not permitted between 4:30 and 6:30 pm.
5. Less signs, but make the current ones more bloody accurate!!
6. Relax speeding. Motorways should NEVER have speed cameras, and there should be a margin to increase to for other areas outside of school and daytime hours. E.G. at 2 in the morning on a dual carriageway I should be allowed to do 90. Why restrict me? There's no other sod around and I'm confident that I can drive.
7. Harsher penalties for careless driving. GPS, Smoking and using the radio are all crap reasons. I mean if you're on the phone without a handsfree and plough into a stationary lorry.
8. Make things like Pass Plus compulsory as part of the test. If people get given a licence to drive on motorways and at night then they need to include at least the theory in the test.
9. CHEAPER BLOODY FUEL!
A dedicated commuter.
Re: extra pollution at 20mph
Generally speaking, with a given vehicle, you'll pollute less at 20mph than at 30mph, although admittedly it's not quite as simple as that and there are lots of factors that influence emissions. Smaller engines pollute less than bigger ones, and become more practical for vehicles used mainly for urban runs if the speed limit drops to 20. With a 20 limit and tiny engines I'd speculate that there'd be less pedal stomping going on (accelerate, brake, accelerate, brake) which would also significantly cut emissions since less fuel would be burned just to warm up brake discs.
Driving around in urban areas is pretty antisocial and uncivilised anyway in my opinion. What we really need is a decent public transport alternative. Public transport should be high quality, convenient and free to use. Bet that would cut road use. I know that raises the question of who's going to pay for it but the amount of money getting trousered by private operators and their shareholders would be freed up if the public transport infrastructure was renationalised which would surely help to some extent, and raising the tax on petrol and diesel might cover it.
Would be nice to see the carrot instead of the stick sometime - great subsidised public transport instead of just insane road tax hikes for SUVs.
"British bike lanes and paths, as anyone who's used them much knows, are rubbish. Their layout almost always prioritises the convenience of motorists over that of cyclists; pedestrians and drivers ignore them most of the time"
Are we talking about the same group of road users, here? Are we talking about the same Lycra-clad arseholes that view pavements as their right-of-way (particularly when avoiding traffic lights) and pedestrians as people to be ridden down? The same alien-helmeted dickheads who think traffic lights, one-way streets, pedestrian crossings and give-way signs just don't apply to them? The same bunch of peddling halfwits who see no problem with cramming their bikes onto trains and blocking the doors so that nobody can get on or off?
OK, these may be the minority of cyclists, but they are a total pain in the ass to other road users AND pedestrians. Far from being "those who pose the least risk to others and who are themselves most at risk from others", these 'Lycra Louts" are an extreme hazard to pedestrians, other road users AND themselves!!!
To be honest...
...it's really just a case of natural selection. If people are stupid enough to run out in front of me I’m doing the world a favour by turning them into fender meat and I should therefore receive a discount when my road tax comes up for renewal.
I shall expedite the mater to my MP forthwith!
Green cross code ?
I heartily agree with the above posters who note the lack of road safety awareness amongst today's yoof.
I live on a major urban road, and about now (1550 as I'm typing this) I can hear car horns and screams as fuckwit children empty out of the various local school and act like twats on the road.
This happens every day.
It's truly miraculous that more of them aren't killed.
w/r/t cyclists, we aren't all like that. I'm a fairly militant cyclist, but I hate the morons who think it's OK to jump lights, ride when pissed, ride in the dark with no lights, etc. Run em over, bastards, they deserve it.
Is he for real
Is this person living in the same UK as the rest of us, central government is passing legislation at a rate we've never seen before, regulating and interfering in private life more than any government in British history!
Amazing how this issue polarises between drivers and not drivers.
As if people who drive never walk around as well.... Maybe it's that people who drive don't run out into the road and expect cars to just avoid them.
It may be a car drivers job to spot hazards, but that doesn't mean you're not due a darwin award if you run out and under my wheels.
Of the road deaths they are targeting, how many are pedestrian road deaths, as opposed to driver road deaths, and how many occur in 30 limits. I'd bet that it's not that high a proportion, and of this limited set, how many have anything at all to do with speed?
Reducing urban 30 limit roads to 20 would IMO reduce road deaths by very very little, whilst causing the average motorists to hate the government which implemented the change and vote them out ASAP.
@ Steve Hewitt
You missed an important point off you list - and it should be at number 1:
1. Ban anyone from driving who thinks speed does not kill
I suppose you think accidents only happen to others, and that you're a great driver too, hey?
Everyone is crap
I often have the misfortune of travelling to work by bus. While waiting at a particularly busy junction in Leeds, I get to watch
4 or 5 motor vehicles jumping the red light at EVERY change even though they should stop for the amber light when in slow-moving, nose-to-tail traffic. Traffic making prohibited left turns through a pedestrian crossing showing the green man. Cyclists on the narrow pavement showing no regard for pedestrians. Pedestrians throwing themselves in front of moving vehicles, to cross the road by the shortest route, instead of using the crossings.
And to make it worse, I'm a hypocrite because I do some of these things too!
Technology & the motorist
You wait, it wont be long before you have a dual credit card slot on your dashboard.
One for your credit card and t'other for your license. GPS speed tracking with "auto billing" for your speeding offence (0.1 mph for 1 second over the limit - It's digital.. your guilty or you aint !!).
Naturally GPS speed limiters wont be introduced as that would circumvent any possibility of revenue raising.
Y'know... I'm a Night Trunk trucker (Liverpool tonight) but I've got just 4 years left on my mortgage.... I guess I'm wishing my life away coz I can't wait to come off the road.
I've started Pushbiking to work as well but Peterborough is blessed with good cycleways... No way your'll catch me cycling on the road... To many demon Truckers/car drivers around !!
Cycling in Britain is dangerous
If you cycle on Britain's roads, you're putting yourself at great risk. It doesn't matter if you're a perfect road user, you're still incredibly likely to get killed by a driver.
The problem is partly the cycle lanes (or lack of) and partly the attitude of drivers. They seem to take leave of their senses when they see a cyclist. There are numerous idiots who like to crow about how they've seen cyclists nipping through traffic lights or doing other stupid things. They and other drivers who they've influenced then take this excuse as reason enough to pass a death sentence on all cyclists.
I stopped cycling because people kept trying to kill me. I didn't break any rules of the road - in fact I followed the highway code to the letter - but every day I'd be in mortal danger several times due to either bad or aggressively dangerous driving.
If you're one of those people who likes to engender bad feeling towards cyclists through 'but they do bad things!' comments, please stop. You might think you're just having a moan, but your actions have consequences.
A different approach?
Why not force drivers to concentrate on the road more?
If they ban manual gearboxes then drivers will only need to use half as many limbs, and worry about half as many things (speed/gear/pedal/etc).
Taking this one stage further, why not put a transducer that continuously measures the weight of the driver so the car can automatically cut its engine, lock the doors, and call the Police to arrest the driver for filling his face whilst in motion?
I admit that monitoring the drivers breath for carbon monoxide (a sure sign of intent to murder by passive smoking) might present problems, given the relatively high level of that gas in cars with the ventilation switched off, but why not capitalise on this and require all drivers to insert a cannula before driving so their blood can be monitored constantly for a variety of behaviours that society finds threatening.
I wonder if, in fact, they would be better remembering the thoughts of Lord Baden-Powell, who felt that all cars should have a spike sticking out of the steering wheel boss ending one inch from the drivers chest, and with the other end attached to the front bumper...
To state the obvious, it's just another way to collect revenue and 'kick' the motorist.
30mph yesterday, 20mph today, 10mph tomorrow, 2mph by the time they've finished messing everyone about.
Difficult to argue that each of those steps are clearly the right thing to do, as if it saves just one life it must be right. (add your own favourite guilt ridden argument here)
I might even start approving of cyclists again
As long as they all go past these cams at 25mph in their masses to as to make sifting them from the car drivers too expensive to make the cams practical.
And as long as they finally realise they're a slow moving obstruction on the road and ride within 12" of the kerb instead of in the middle of the road optionally two abreast.
Have you ever noticed how the more 'ecclectically' (sportif?) cyclists dress the more they think they can ride in the middle of the road? I don't care if your bike costs £2k and your tyres are £50+ a pop. Get in the gutter if you want to live, pay for a road sweeper vehicle to clean the kerbside before your 'event'. See those double yellow lines? That's the cycle lane.
And yes that is how I used to cycle as I would expect to die if I rode in the middle of the road, like nobs seem to these days, regardless of how gaily coloured I dressed.
Hmm maybe I'll never approve of cyclists on the road after all...
The reason that the pedestrian still has total right of way - note that please, all the twats who are going on about sprogs walking in the road - on any road type short of a dual carriageway is really simple: You're driving an armoured, ton-weight tank, and they're not. Grow up and look to your own responsibilities. Jaywalking is an American law. We don't have it.
"A policeman advised me to curb my speed. I did as they suggested but now I'm running over pedestrians all the time."
Quote: If you drive 70 miles at 70mph it takes you an hour. Drive those 70 miles at 60mph it takes you 10 minutes longer - big deal.
Yeah, but if you drive 700 miles at 70mph, and then at 60mph it takes you 70 minutes longer. I spend long enough in the car to want to spend another 70 minutes there, rather than with my family. This also does not take into account the additional stops required, as the government recommend breaks after every two hours!!!!!
Perhaps when you know how to drive and do significant amounts of it, you will understand that all this red tape is designed to get on peoples tits and not save lives!!!!
Speed does not kill
Energy transfer and momentum transfer kill.
If you never hit anyone, nobody dies.
"Speed kills" is a moronic, knee-jerk oversimplification of the issue designed to appeal to the emotions of those who don't have a critical faculty.
*Of course* doing 40 down a (currently 30 limit) suburban street at school chucking out time with cars either side is stupid and increases the likelihood of a child being killed. Doing 30 probably isn't that bright, either.
But doing 40 down that same street at 03h00 isn't going to kill anyone because there isn't anyone there, most of the time and when there is they're adults who can see the oncoming headlights, rather than juveniles who we don't expect to be 100% responsible all the time (I hope).
Similarly 100mph plus is probably only going to kill the driver and passengers of a vehicle on a motorway in the wee small hours. Given the margin for driver error, that sort of speed should probably require you to have passed an additonal test, but motorways should need an extra test to drive on anyway.
Re:@ Steve Hewitt
Quote "1. Ban anyone from driving who thinks speed does not kill"
Speed in general does not kill, inappropriate speed kills. If speed on it's own kills then all trains would kill, as they travel (or should) at over 100MPH, every plane kills, travelling at 300+mph. Motorways are the safest roads in Britain, and guess what, they have the highest speed limit in britain. Speed does not kill. Doing 50 past a school at 15:30 will kill, doing 150 on the motorway at 18:00 will kill, travelling at 50 in the ice and fog where you cannot see 5 yards in front of you will kill.
Yet another of these blinded by the Government statistics type - get a life!!!
Jesus...Anon just loves to come out with silly things, eh?
I was riding in a bus back from Gloucester the other day. There I was sitting quite happily at the front of the large and quite speedy double decker, peering down through the window. I saw a kid cycling on the road. He looked over his shoulder I'd assume to take a peek at where the bus was. At this point it was pretty close. What happens next completely baffles me. The kid just turned right into the middle of the road! The driver managed to slam his breaks on fast enough to not hit him, but come on...Can you seriously say that it's the bus drivers fault that this happened?
Pedestrians and Cyclists generally act more stupidly on the roads at young ages than drivers do. Granted, there are boy racers and all that but regardless of their speed if a child walks flat out into the middle of the road when the car/bus/van/what ever is clearly visible, it IS NOT the drivers fault...
Kids need to learn some road safety me thinks.
Use supermarket logic
Lower the speed limits - but by 1mph. Doing thirty-something in a thirty limit doesn't feel particularly evil. But drop the limit to 29mph and there's a little bit more of a psychological barrier.
Just my 1.99p worth.
"If you don't pay road tax you can't use the road."
I stopped reading there as you clearly don't have a clue. many car users do not pay road tax, ditto other vehicle types...
...for example, check the "not applicable" bands here:
More carrots and less sticks
More plans to enforce speed restrictions, which hides the problem of drivers not driving within their capabilities. Instead of beating us to death with bloody speed cameras, how about:
o changes to the DSA test to make it staggered, including night driving, motorway driving and adverse weather driving, and classes on driving theory including basic maintenance, braking forces, skids, etc, before even getting into a driving seat.
o incentives for drivers to continue their improvement by offering proper insurance discounts for drivers who pass, and maintain, recognised advanced driving courses such as RoADAR
o removal of many hard speed limits and introducing advisory limits in their place - this will help stop speedo watching, and allow drivers to use their judgement to gauge the situation. Sometimes it is not safe to do 30 in a 30 zone - just saying speed kills is bollocks, it's speed which is inappropriate for the conditions which can lead to accidents
o once and for all, ripping out the god-awful public transport systems we have and doing it right from the very start. Yes it will be painful, but this tinkering and farting around with it never sees to get anywhere. If there was reliable, integrated, well-priced public transport I would much prefer to use it than drive.
o doing away with cycle lanes except where they actually work well (some of them are bloody ridiculous), and introducing a cycling test, license and insurance to use the public roads. Also introduce decent public cycle parking in town centers, etc.
o proper investment in the state of the roads, including potholes and signage placement / clarity. Some roads and signs are a disgrace.
o introduction of a central body to oversee digging up any public highway in the country, in order to co-ordinate work by separate contractors. No more digging up motorways by one utility, only for it to be dug up again three months later by another.
Flying pigs, anyone?
Grumpy old men
There have been a few comments about public transport being better used to reduce the number of deaths on the road. But its all the governments fault that the public transport systems are such a shambles.
The amount of fuel duty/road tax/VAT on fuel that we pay to the government has increased, yet the amount that the Government invests in public transport (especially outside of the metropolis called London) has been reduced year upon year. Can I point you to a slide that the BBC produced back in 2005, especially slide 3.
The Government is now leaving it up to the local councils to decide where and when tolls on the roads should be introduced and I am 100% certain that, even though the councils say that the money raised will go back in to public transport, the councils will waste the money on hiring 20 more people to push paper work around the council offices and hire another 20 staff to produce statistics showing that things are improving.
I think I have just become one of those grumpy old men.
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp
- The long war on 'DRAM price fixing' is over: Claim YOUR spoils now (It's worth a few beers)
- Dell thuds down low-cost lap workstation for
cheapfrugal creatives or engineers