So, we saw off the Home Office's Identity Cards Bill, at least for the time being. It never survived the second reading in the House of Lords thanks to the London School of Economics' report, which was supportive of ID but highly critical of this scheme. The Home Office has gone very quiet since then, which is understandable now that we're into the fever of an election, but what's going to happen next to the Identity Cards Bill?
When David Blunkett, the architect of the current draft legislation, left office it was clear that he would be back. It's hard to find a New Labour politician, or civil servant, who is prepared to stand in the way of anything that Mr Blunkett set in place, since they know he'll be back with a vengeance. But where will he return? After all, it wouldn't look good for him to oust an incumbent at the next cabinet reshuffle. And he wants the Home Office back, to carry on his works of shifting the balance of power away from the citizen and over to the nanny state - but that won't be possible.
My theory is this: after the election the government (which will still be Labour, albeit with a reduce majority) will announce the creation of a Department for Homeland Security, with a brief to protect British citizens. This Department will assume control of the newly formed Special Reconnaissance Regiment, Immigration, all the national police departments and some elements of the judiciary. And this will be the place to sit the newly-launched ID Cards scheme. After all, which political party would stand in the way of an initiative that is there to protect the people?
And guess who is going to get the job of running that Department? Step forward, D Blunkett Esq...
If anyone can offer me odds on this happening, just let me know where to place the bet!
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Solving the problem of urban 4x4's / SUVs
Over the past year we've seen an increasing amount of media coverage of the 'problem' of urban 4x4 vehicles. I have to declare an interest here - I own two Land Rovers, but I live in the country - but I agree that it's time to deal with the menace of oversized, overpowered, wasteful vehicles driven by individuals who are not competent to safely control them.
So let's start by cutting through the cr@p here - the anti-SUV lobby correctly argue that SUVs are too big, inefficient and unsafe. But transit vans are too big for domestic use, but plenty get used at weekends; and big executive saloons swan around drinking opious amounts of fuel, so once again this is not a problem that is unique to 4x4s.
The real issue here is large vehicles with 'pedestrian-unfriendly' bonnets and bumpers (when was the last time you saw bull bars anywhere - they've already disappeared from our roads) being driven too fast in urban areas. Frankly the issue of them colliding at speed on the open road is irrelevant, a head-on at 70mph is going to be bad news regardless of what type of vehicle is involved. Likewise, if a driver rolls their 4x4 by cornering too fast, well they should know better than that. No, the fact is that the place we want to see these things gone from is the middle of our towns and cities, outside of our schools and playing fields, and hogging parking space by the side of the road.
And the problem drivers? No, it's not the farmers, rural inhabitants, 4x4 enthusiasts or tradesmen in their Land Rovers, Toyotas and Nissans. It's the mums taking kids to school in Guildford in Range Rovers; sales reps cruising around in Landcruisers; families going shopping in Warriors. They could just as easily go in fuel-guzzling Jaguars, big BMWs or high-visibility Galaxys, but none of these are guaranteed to kill a child in a pedestrian impact, and all of them will stop when you press the brake pedal.
The problem with these owners is that they will never go off-road (sorry, the edge of the school playing field doesn't count). Yet they have a powerful SUV, and no training in how to use it either on- or off-road. This makes them a liability - many don't understand (or care about) the issues arising from a vehicle that is heavy, has a high centre of gravity, and a completely different transmission from anything they've driven before. I recently attended a shoot in which a lady Land Rover Discovery owner managed to get the vehicle stuck in an inch of mud, and then popped her head out of the window and asked of the assembled crowd 'does this have 4 wheel drive?'
Banning the vehicles, or radically increasing their road tax, is simply not fair on many 4x4 drivers who need them, or at least can justify owning a 4x4 without being a menace. And there is a way to get these vehicles off the roads without unfairly punishing legitimate owners. Can you drive a lorry without a proper license? No. Can you drive a motorbike without a proper license? Certainly not. So why should 4x4's be allowed on the roads in the hands of people who have not been trained to use them?
Here's my reasonable, equitable, and sure-to-succeed plan:
1. Introduce a new driving license classification for '4x4 Utility' vehicles, that covers all large 4x4s. Anyone who wishes to drive a 4x4 without this classification should have 'L' plates on the vehicle and a competent passenger.
2. To qualify for this new classification, the driver must first pass a theory examination in which they demonstrate familiarity with the workings of a 4x4 transmission, the safety issues associated with the weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle, how to drive off road, how to recover a stuck vehicle, how to tow another vehicle etc. - all the things you need a 4x4 for.
3. The driver must then attend a one-day off-road driving course, in which they put all of the above into practice in an environment that is wet, muddy and generally suited to off-roaders. Most importantly, they must complete the course *IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE*. Not a school vehicle, or an instructor's vehicle. This is essential: it will weed out all of the unnecessary 4x4's that are geared for the road, and all of the unnecessary drivers who would hate to scuff their Guccis or break a nail.
4. Anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate commercial or domestic need for a 4x4 should be able to take the test for free. The cost to everyone else should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. The requirement for the new classification could be phased in over a three-year period.
This should very quickly deal with the problem of urban 4x4's without financial prejudice against those who genuinely need the vehicles. Please let me know what you think.
So let's start by cutting through the cr@p here - the anti-SUV lobby correctly argue that SUVs are too big, inefficient and unsafe. But transit vans are too big for domestic use, but plenty get used at weekends; and big executive saloons swan around drinking opious amounts of fuel, so once again this is not a problem that is unique to 4x4s.
The real issue here is large vehicles with 'pedestrian-unfriendly' bonnets and bumpers (when was the last time you saw bull bars anywhere - they've already disappeared from our roads) being driven too fast in urban areas. Frankly the issue of them colliding at speed on the open road is irrelevant, a head-on at 70mph is going to be bad news regardless of what type of vehicle is involved. Likewise, if a driver rolls their 4x4 by cornering too fast, well they should know better than that. No, the fact is that the place we want to see these things gone from is the middle of our towns and cities, outside of our schools and playing fields, and hogging parking space by the side of the road.
And the problem drivers? No, it's not the farmers, rural inhabitants, 4x4 enthusiasts or tradesmen in their Land Rovers, Toyotas and Nissans. It's the mums taking kids to school in Guildford in Range Rovers; sales reps cruising around in Landcruisers; families going shopping in Warriors. They could just as easily go in fuel-guzzling Jaguars, big BMWs or high-visibility Galaxys, but none of these are guaranteed to kill a child in a pedestrian impact, and all of them will stop when you press the brake pedal.
The problem with these owners is that they will never go off-road (sorry, the edge of the school playing field doesn't count). Yet they have a powerful SUV, and no training in how to use it either on- or off-road. This makes them a liability - many don't understand (or care about) the issues arising from a vehicle that is heavy, has a high centre of gravity, and a completely different transmission from anything they've driven before. I recently attended a shoot in which a lady Land Rover Discovery owner managed to get the vehicle stuck in an inch of mud, and then popped her head out of the window and asked of the assembled crowd 'does this have 4 wheel drive?'
Banning the vehicles, or radically increasing their road tax, is simply not fair on many 4x4 drivers who need them, or at least can justify owning a 4x4 without being a menace. And there is a way to get these vehicles off the roads without unfairly punishing legitimate owners. Can you drive a lorry without a proper license? No. Can you drive a motorbike without a proper license? Certainly not. So why should 4x4's be allowed on the roads in the hands of people who have not been trained to use them?
Here's my reasonable, equitable, and sure-to-succeed plan:
1. Introduce a new driving license classification for '4x4 Utility' vehicles, that covers all large 4x4s. Anyone who wishes to drive a 4x4 without this classification should have 'L' plates on the vehicle and a competent passenger.
2. To qualify for this new classification, the driver must first pass a theory examination in which they demonstrate familiarity with the workings of a 4x4 transmission, the safety issues associated with the weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle, how to drive off road, how to recover a stuck vehicle, how to tow another vehicle etc. - all the things you need a 4x4 for.
3. The driver must then attend a one-day off-road driving course, in which they put all of the above into practice in an environment that is wet, muddy and generally suited to off-roaders. Most importantly, they must complete the course *IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE*. Not a school vehicle, or an instructor's vehicle. This is essential: it will weed out all of the unnecessary 4x4's that are geared for the road, and all of the unnecessary drivers who would hate to scuff their Guccis or break a nail.
4. Anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate commercial or domestic need for a 4x4 should be able to take the test for free. The cost to everyone else should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. The requirement for the new classification could be phased in over a three-year period.
This should very quickly deal with the problem of urban 4x4's without financial prejudice against those who genuinely need the vehicles. Please let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)