An interesting site saying what I have been saying for a long time, especially in Council Meetings.
www.tspeurope.com/
Paragraph 13 reads.......
>>>>There is an even more sinister reason. In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union (www. edc.eu.int/cfc/about. html) adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation:
"All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means"
|
|
OOP's, that should read "anti-car"
|
|
|
The address you posted doesn't work, but I tracked them down via a search engine. This is a joint initiative between local authorities and the rather sinister sounding Directorate XI of the European Union. What really annoys me about it is not that it is anti-car. If you spend any time in London, or driving on our crumbling motorway network, you have to accept the need for changes in our whole approach to transport, since what we have at the moment really doesn't work very well.
No, what really annoys me is that this taxpayer funded project is a complete waste of money - a vague, wishy-washy collection of ideas, produced by yet another bloated, overfunded public sector organisation whose only purpose as far as I can see is to give local councillors the excuse to go on taxpayer-subsidised 'factfinding trips' to see how their fellow councillors in other European cities are all doing an equally bad job of managing traffic flow.
Here is a typical extract from their website. A free prize (an unused oil filter, fits Renault 9 or 11) to anyone who can explain in plain English what it means, and what practical improvements will result from it.
"Momentum is an urban transport project developed with the aim to safeguard a transportation need for individuals & companies through the effective use of available transport strategies for avoidance of trips, promoting a sustainable transportation development. The key aspect of MOMENTUM is the creation of a mobility centre to address all kinds of traffic problems whilst providing a range of concepts for transport modes and transportation purposes. MOMENTUM project objectives include;
Presentation of mobility concepts, tools and strategies
Definition of integrated concepts for mobility management strategies and mobility management
centres
Demonstration and evaluation of mobility management strategies as a tool for mobility centres
Identify the concepts for the transfer of mobility management strategies
Disseminate the results of the project to all partners in Europe."
|
Apparently...
Pythagoras' theorem = 24 words
The Ten Commandments = 179 words
The American Declaration of Independence = 1300 words
EC directive on the shape of tractor seats = 25,000 words
Why call a spade a spade when you can call it a horticultural excavation implement, eh?
|
|
|
|
If one of my company managers produced a load of crap (sorry Martyn) like that his feet'd be hitting the pavement looking for his next career move in 10 secs flat..........
|
|
|
Hi Richard,
I agree about the jargon. It annoys the Hell out of me at Council meetings.
The address posted works OK for me. Here is what it says: Check para 13.
Begins.....
Europinion: Speed limits - the hidden agenda
Malcolm Heymer, a London Transport Planning Manager with a local authority, argues that speed is not the main cause of accidents
In many other countries around the world, highway speed limits are being reduced and enforced more vigorously, with speed cameras and other sophisticated equipment being deployed on a large scale.
We are told that this is necessary to cut the frequency of road accidents. Is this the real reason, however, for the current focus on speed enforcement and, even if it were, is it the best way to reduce accidents?
Taking the second question first, we are frequently told in the UK that speed is the main cause of between 'one third' and 'most' road accidents.
When asked to substantiate these imprecise claims, however, the proponents of strict speed limit enforcement are unable to do so. The research evidence that does exist gives a very different picture.
A study covering eight police forces in the UK showed that excessive speed was the primary cause of just 4% of the accidents analysed. A study in a large English county found that 5% of accidents were speed related. In Florida, USA in 1996, excessive speed was found to be the cause of just 2.2% of accidents.
These figures mirror the results of accident analyses carried out in connection with road safety improvements in my own highway authority area, where excessive speed is rarely implicated in more than 5 to 10% of accidents.
Even where excessive speed is a causal factor in an accident, it is a symptom of the more fundamental failure to identify a hazard ahead or respond correctly to it. Just as in medicine, where it is important to treat the disease and not the symptom, so road safety activity should be targeted at improving hazard awareness skills, not rigidly enforcing often arbitrary speed limits.
The Australian Road Transport Commission has recently concluded that better training in hazard perception is the only measure likely to reduce driver-related accident rates.
So what are the real reasons for focusing on speed enforcement? One attraction is the ability to extract more revenue from road users. When speed cameras were first approved for use in the UK, we were told that they would only been sited where there was a history of speed-related accidents.
This restriction has been cynically ignored, with speed cameras even installed on new roads before they were opened. Many cameras are hidden behind trees or road signs and are sited where drivers are likely to exceed the speed limit, because it is safe to do so.
In the March 1999 edition of the staff magazine of London's Metropolitan Police is the following statement: "Speed cameras at the moment have their limitations but when these matters can be overcome, they will be a sure winner for raising revenue."
There is an even more sinister reason. In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union (www. edc.eu.int/cfc/about. html) adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means.
Strictly enforced, low speed limits are one way of achieving that political aim. A delegate at a recent UK conference called for a 50 mph speed limit on UK motorways to create a shift to rail travel.
Local authorities in the UK are blatantly lowering speed limits in order to encourage modal shift, even though a government study has shown that 20 mph zones introduced into UK cities have failed to lead to an increase in walking and cycling.
Given this political agenda, it is hardly surprising that 'Speed Kills' propaganda is promoted so vigorously. By so doing, people are conditioned to accept ever lower speed limits and greater enforcement.
Residents are also encouraged to demand lower limits, in the false belief that this is the way to improve safety. Thus a downward spiral is created, leading to ever greater restrictions on personal freedom, which are quite unjustified.
Professor Garel Rhys of Cardiff University Business School has said that "Plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime." Should we professionals allow ourselves to become agents of this process, in supposedly free societies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers' views on this subject are invited in English, German, French or Spanish. Please email the editor at: tspeditor@ropl.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Er...pass.
|
Sounds like a good car showroom could meet most of those aims.
Mobility = Cars.
What we actually have to do is reduce the need for mobility in many business transactions, particularly in the City/Town areas.
David
|
|
|
Translation :
We are going to spend the next year running up a big expenses bill whilst trying to come up with some transport ideas for Europe.
Then we are going to spend the following year telling everybody about it.
Then they will ignore us and we can start on the next half arsed project thus ensuring that my consultancy fees continue for the forseable future.
----------------------
btw. I'm quite keen on the idea of Europe but I can't see it ever working
|
|
|
|
But.....
You all must appreciate that systemised logistical concepts apply when balanced third generation capability meets a totally monitored contingency otherwise an incremental responsive flexibilty will not be achieved.
Thought you all knew this.
|
Wonderful
Can I use that at my next Council meeting?
|
|
|
Yeah, I have that random buzzword list also.
Management consultants and anyone who's never done a decent day's work in his life (for which read seat-warmers on local councils, Eurodrones, politicians, MP's, need I go on) would be lost without it.
|
|
|
|
Alwyn,
I agree that these sort of ideas have featured in local authority thinking in recent years, but I get the impression that even now this line of thinking is falling out of favour. The reason is simple - money. The Government knows full well that there is no point in getting people out of cars and into other forms of transport, unless those alternatives are capable of withstanding the increased passenger numbers. Otherwise you just transfer the congestion from one form of transport to another. And if you are talking about improving public transport, that always ends up with the Government spending public money, and lots of it.
So ultimately it's cheaper for the Government to let people sit in traffic jams in their own cars, than to encourage them to use public transport. Councils will continue to annoy motorists for a while on their own account (traffic calming, impenetrable one-way systems) but eventually they will realise that central government isn't going to give them the serious money needed to improve public transport, and if they make life too difficult for motorists, businesses will start moving elsewhere, meaning less income from business rates.
The article you quote is a very personal view of the situation - an opinion rather than news item. I distrust government as much as anyone, but I don't think they are planning to take our cars away just yet.
|
|
|
