More Anti-Car Nonsense from the Groan

As is usual we get the “more regulation” brigade demanding, well, more regulation in the wake of the M5 crash. What happened was awful and although an investigation is still to be conducted, the likely root cause will be a combination of factors including people driving too fast for the conditions and too close together. The cause of the poor conditions is almost irrelevant –  we expect –  or we damned well should –  poor visibility at this time of the year. It doesn’t matter whether it was fog or smoke, the same driving principles apply and we should expect sudden changes in visibility caused by patches of fog –  it goes with the territory.

What happened, happened. It could have been avoided by people driving more appropriately for the conditions. But, no, the state needs to be involved we are told.

Imagine that a train or plane crash in Somerset had caused “a massive fireball”, seven deaths and more than 50 injuries. Inquiries would be launched, new regulations demanded, and aircraft grounded or train drivers suspended. After the Hatfield crash in 2000, which killed four passengers, the UK rail network was brought almost to a standstill for a month, with speed restrictions imposed while track was replaced.

This is a red herring. The reason Railtrack (as it was then) implemented masses of speed restrictions was in part due to the state of the track and in part due to panic caused by media hysteria. To try and compare the situation then with what has just happened is barrel scraping taken to new levels.

Yet after the horrific M5 crash on Friday night, involving more than 30 vehicles, we shall express our condolences to the victims then shrug our shoulders and attribute the carnage to bad luck and bad weather. Our motorways are among the safest in Europe, at least in part because they are among the most congested, and road deaths overall have been falling for 20 years.

Well, quite. They have been falling steadily. And they are the safest roads on out network. Look at it this way, the reason this incident has been all over the headlines is precisely because it is a rare occurrence. Bad weather, yes. Bad luck? Well, if you were driving competently and became embroiled in someone else’s accident, yes. However, the cause of this had nothing to do with luck. It will have everything to do with poor driving. Our motorway system is overcrowded and drivers drive far too close to the vehicle in front. In the event of something going wrong (a truck driver deciding that a lane change is needed without bothering about whoever is in it at that moment, for example), there is no room for error.

We congratulate ourselves, observing that “only” 1,857 people were killed last year. We regard road deaths almost as acts of God, and rarely demand to know, as we do for other transport casualties, who is to blame. “Pilot error” is never an adequate explanation when planes crash, but we readily accept “driver error” when cars and lorries collide.

Because that is usually the case –  it is driver error. What more do you want? What other explanation is there for driving too fast for the conditions, not paying attention to the road conditions and tailgating?

Rain, fog and smoke from fireworks are likely to emerge as the main causes of the M5 crash.

Yup. What more do you what?

Ah.. but… government is at the heart of this. After all, this is the Groan and in the Groan the state is at the centre of everything. We cannot simply accept that people get it wrong, that personal responsibility is a factor –  even the factor –  no, what went wrong was “signals” from the government. And what are these “signals”? Ah, yes, the reduction in revenue cameras, that is a bad signal in Guardianland. So, too, is the decision to increase the maximum limits on motorways to 80mph. What Peter Wilby who wrote this dire drivel fails to comprehend is that speed limits have nothing to do with safety, as I mentioned yesterday. They are arbitrary limits placed by the state. A safe speed is rather more fluid –  it is one in which the driver can stop in what he can see to be clear. Therefore a safe limit may be higher or lower than the posted limit. If Mr Wilby had learned to drive, he would have had this simple point explained to him by his driving instructor.

The state is incapable of applying a safe limit to a stretch of road because that safe limit is constantly in a state of flux. It will vary according to weather conditions, road surface conditions, the alertness and competence of the driver and the condition of the vehicle. A competent driver will drive across the same stretch of road at differing speeds on differing occasions because the conditions have changed. The maximum permitted speed is not a factor. Breaking this is illegal, it is not necessarily unsafe. Therefore, more regulation or failing to increase maximum limits to a more sensible level will not affect accident statistics. Of course, the hard of thinking see a brief upwards change in the trend as a response to “signals” whereas others of us will take a more cautious approach and see whether this is actually significant or just a blip in the overall downward trend (not least given that the blip occurred during a harsh winter in appalling road conditions). But then, those of us who are more cautious are not screeching for more regulation, are we?

Now, if the likes of Mr Wily were arguing for improved driver training –  including, perhaps, more effective training in motorway driving in poor conditions, he might have a point. As it is, he is just another of the regular Guardianistas who think that the state has all the answers to matters of personal responsibility.

BTW, some wonderful anti-car idiocy below the line. This being the Guardian, it was fairly predictable, of course. Apparently anyone involved in a reported accident should be banned. A bit tough if someone drives into the back of you or swings out into your road space, eh? But then, thinking isn’t something the Guardianista invest any effort in.

———————————

Update Again BTL, we get more idiocy:

Actually looking at the data shows that there are three actions that can make a big difference to road deaths and serious injuries. Firstly stop people riding powerful motorbikes, they account for nearly 400 of those deaths. Secondly, where pedestrians and traffic are mixed enforce strict 20 mph limits; these virtually eliminate death and serious injury and there is very little advantage in going below twenty. Finally, stop young men driving until they are at least 21. Death and serious injury is strongly correlated to the age and gender of the driver and it is about age, not experience. Interestingly, the last government made it much harder to get a bike licence and the number being issued has dropped sharply, twenty mile an hour limits are being widely introduced and the insurance companies are doing a good job of getting young men off the roads. All the other hobby horse suggestions are just that, whims unsuported by real data.

BTW, I have a Honda CBF600 which I enjoy riding but you cannot get away from the fact that it’s much more dangerous than driving my Honda Accord!

The cognitive dissonance is a delight. I just love the assertion about hobby horses being whims unsupported by data having just written something that is precisely that –  experience doesn’t count…

With friends like that, I don’t need enemies. I’ll continue to ride my large, powerful motorcycle, if it’s all the same to you and too bad if it isn’t. My choice, my life, my risk and as I’ve managed to do it for thirty odd years without mishap, I guess I’m doing something right.