----- Original Message -----

From: Gordon Selway

To: gordonselway@...

Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:53 AM

Subject: [CTC-RTR] Fwd: Anyone caught speeding three times is a dangerous criminal--isn't he, Stephen Ladyman MP. - from a London Cycling Campaign list: double apologies for any cross-posting

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:29:17 +0000
Subject: [lcc-issues] Anyone caught speeding three times is a
dangerous criminal--isn't he, Stephen Ladyman MP.

Apols for cross-posting.

The following article appeared in last week's edition of Transport
Times, a 'free' magazine produced for transport professionals. I
guess that the "suitability" of Stephen Ladyman to head up so-called
"road
safety" is well known: nonetheless, Ben's article makes disturbing
reading: I read it on the train and felt almost sick.

All active campaigners for walking and cycling should make some
noise--my bcc list includes representatives from cycling and
pedestrian organisations and progressive political groups. Top marks,
Ben (LCC Hackney), for raising the issue.

Best,

Richard.

Comment

The ageing boy racer should restore credibility by issuing tough road
death reduction targets

Ladyman to duck road safety issues to please car lobby

by Ben Webster

Why did Tony Blair appoint an ageing boy racer as Road Safety
Minister?  With annual road deaths hovering stubbornly between 3,200
and 3,600 for the past decade, surely it was inappropriate to select
a man with a passion for sports cars and super bikes capable of
160mph.

Perhaps the Prime Minister did not realise that Stephen Ladyman had
been caught speeding not once, or even twice, but three times.
According to Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales,
"anyone who gets caught speeding three times is a dangerous criminal".

Blair could not have remained in ignorance for long because one of
Ladyman's first acts as minister was to book an appointment on Top
Gear, where he boasted to Jeremy Clarkson about having been one flash
away from an automatic six-month driving ban.

He also attacked cameras at the bottom of hills as "sneaky" and
unashamedly admitted he had a GPS camera detector in his car. The
only reason for having a detector is to be able to break the speed
limit with impunity.

Of course, Ladyman was obliged, after zooming round Clarkson's test
track, to spend a couple of minutes on the sofa defending the
Government's speed camera policy. But behind the scenes he was
planning changes which would warm the coils of every petrolhead's
heart.

After blocking the installation of any new cameras for nine months,
Ladyman announced sweeping reforms to the funding system for camera
partnerships.

This was a stroke of political genius. By abolishing hypothecation of
camera fines and giving local authorities an overall road safety
budget, he simultaneously quashed the idea that cameras were revenue
raising devices and dumped responsibility for speed enforcement
policy on police and local councillors.

While publicly adhering to the line that cameras saved lives, Ladyman
left partnerships facing an uncertain future. He might argue that the
public is clamouring for the partnerships to be reined in, but that
would indicate he is spending too much time with the likes of
Clarkson.

The camera debate is dominated by a vociferous minority of drivers
who believe they, not the government, should be allowed to determine
what is a safe speed. Most people, even most drivers, are strongly in
favour of cameras and want more of them. Even the AA, in a recent
survey, found
69% support for cameras.

While working hard to keep his four-wheeled friends happy, Ladyman
has also found time to promote the interests of fellow born-again
bikers. He wants to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes, where they
will intimidate cyclists and skittle pedestrians trying to cross
through lines of queuing traffic.

By allowing motorcyclists to dodge queues, Ladyman will encourage
more people to buy motorbikes and send road deaths in the wrong
direction. There are already too many 50-something men coping with
their mid-life crisis by inexpertly riding superbikes at weekends.

Per mile travelled, a motorcyclist is 40 times more likely to be
killed than a car passenger. Even cycling is three times safer than
riding a motorbike.

Ladyman, 54, has an opportunity this month to redeem himself by
supporting European plans to harmonise drink drive laws and introduce
speed limiters on cars. But the omens are not good. The DfT has
already intervened to delete references to these measures in a
statement due to be agreed by EU transport ministers in Brussels.

Ladyman could also restore credibility in the Government's road
safety policy by issuing tough new casualty reduction targets. The
existing 2010 ones are only likely to be achieved because the DfT
chose the soft option of reducing deaths and serious injuries rather
than just deaths.

There is wiggle room in the definition of serious injury but you
cannot argue with a death.

Is there any good reason why a greater risk of death should be
tolerated on roads than on railways? If both had the same death rate,
fewer than 1000 people would be killed on roads each year.

Ben Webster is Transport Correspondent of The Times

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 02/06/2006