Taking Liberties

Yesterday morning, at 9.15, I jumped in my car to drive from my hotel in the centre of Bristol to a meeting less than two miles away. According to Multimap, the journey would take exactly four minutes. 

One hour (60 minutes) later I gave up the battle with the city's unfathomable road network and returned, defeated, to the hotel where I abandoned the car and called a taxi.

I now understand why so many people choose to jump from the city's famous suspension bridge. Yesterday morning, at 10.15, I came THAT close to doing it myself.

Further to my post HERE about unnecessary signs, I have just driven to and from Cambridge on the A14 and on both sides of the dual-carriageway temporary electronic signs have been erected with the message DON'T PHONE WHILE DRIVING.

I think most people now know that using a hand-held phone while driving is illegal. But - and this is what annoys me - it is still legal to phone while driving, as long as you use a hands-free kit (see HERE). 

But the authorities don't care for the small print. After all, in today's bully state it's easier to tell everyone not to phone while driving. Period. That's the problem with Britain. When it comes to telling people what to do, we always have to go that extra mile.

PS. As you know, anti-smoking campaigners now want to ban smoking while driving, although there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that smoking is a serious distraction. It's not illegal - yet - so if anyone sees a sign that says DON''T SMOKE WHILE DRIVING please let me know immediately.

Talking of The Free Society (below), I have just received an email bemoaning the fact that the site has a section on motoring. According to our correspondent, "Motorists are the most pampered and cosseted group in the country. Compare their moaning about petrol prices while the rest of us have no choice but to fork out more and more for public transport. Pity they've inviegled themselves into what would otherwise be an organisation well worth supporting."

I must hold my hand up. I have a particular fixation with motoring, especially fuel tax, speed cameras and speed bumps. The car gave millions of people a freedom they could only dream about 100 (or even 50) years ago. There's a downside (as anyone who lives and owns a car in London will know), but it remains a hugely important symbol of individual freedom.

Nothing, to my mind, can compare with the joy of driving a car in the Highlands and islands of Scotland - enjoying the scenery yet insulated from the cold, wet and wind while listening to the radio or your personal choice of music. You're in control. With few restrictions, you can go where you want, when you want. Now that what's I call freedom.

Like smokers, motorists are an easy target for politicians and campaigners. I can understand why, if you don't drive (or can't afford to), you don't much care about motorists. But you HAVE to care, just as non-smokers should care about what is happening to smokers. One day the government will target something that you DO care about. And when that day comes, you will want and need our support - and we will gladly give it.

Genuine liberals must stick together and support one another, regardless of our personal preferences. That is the whole point of The Free Society - a loose coalition of libertarians who want a fairer, less regulated approach to issues such as smoking, eating, drinking and, yes, motoring.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the law that made it compulsory to wear seat belts in cars. I know this because yesterday afternoon I got a call from the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 asking what I thought about the issue.

To be honest, I rarely give it much thought, although the health lobby sometimes use the example of selt belts to molify opponents of public smoking bans. "Oh," they chirp, "people were against compulsory seat belts but everyone accepts them now. The same will happen with smoking bans."

There is a big difference, of course. Wearing a seat belt, especially since the introduction of inertia reel belts in the Seventies (ie the ones that allow you considerable movement), is not a major inconvenience. In fact it's no inconvenience at all, so I am perfectly happy to belt up because it doesn't have a negative impact on the quality of my life.

If I stop and think about it, however, I do object to the fact that if I choose not to clunk click every trip I could be stopped and fined. Whether I wear a seatbelt should be no business of the state. If I am in an accident and smash my head on the dashboard or the steering wheel or, worse, get thrown out of the car because I am not wearing one, that's a risk that adults should be allowed to take.

(Children are a different matter. Always err on the side of caution, I say, although I wonder sometimes how the baby boom generation ever survived childhood, what with the absence of seat belts and all those adults puffing away in their presence.)

It could be argued that being forced to wear seat belts was a small step towards the modern bully state. We meekly accepted what politicians and campaigners told us - that tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year - and assumed that would be an end to it.

Now, 25 years later, it's compulsory to wear seat belts in the back as well as the front of the car. Failure to buckle up in the back of a cab is also an offence (although I don't know anyone who does). Perhaps we should all wear  straitjackets and be done with it.

I have said it before - in the right hands, technology can be a wonderful thing. In the wrong hands it can be used to enslave rather than liberate. Today General Motors will unveil a car which "doesn't need a driver". The Daily Mail seems to think this is A Good Thing:

Imagine going for a drive - and being able to sit back and enjoy the view. Or taking the car to the pub - and then taking it home. For most of us, that's a pipe dream involving a chauffeur or perhaps a particularly selfless spouse. But the car that drives itself may be only a few years away.

I don't know about you, but the car that drives itself is one step from motoring hell. For a start, the government will make sure it is programmed never to exceed the speed limit (which will no doubt be slashed to reduce the potential carnage from a pile-up of driverless vehicles).

Unlike the Starship Enterprise, it won't be allowed to boldly go where no man has gone before. Quite the reverse. Stealing an inch at traffic lights? No chance. Unauthorised U-turns? Forget it. Off-roading? Never. Not in a billion years. (Think of the environment.)

As for the pub (if it still exists in 2018 when GM expects the driverless car to be on the streets), does anyone really think they will be allowed to get in, even as a passenger, under the influence of alcohol? Of course not. The driverless car will come, I'm sure, with an immobiliser that will detect automatically the faintest whiff of alcohol. (Woe betide anyone who has just consumed a sherry trifle.)

General Motors calls the car The Boss. How appropriate. Full article HERE.

Lewis Hamilton is the latest person to fall victim to the traffic cops. The F1 driver was caught travelling at 196km/h (122mph) in northern France on Sunday. That's not the interesting bit of the story, however. What I didn't know is that the speed limit on French motorways is 130km/h (85mph).

If it's good enough for the French, it's good enough for us. So if Nick Clegg really wants to mark the "beginning of Britain's liberal future", I suggest he starts by proposing an immediate increase in the speed at which we can (legally) drive on Britain's motorways.

The Tories flirted with the idea at the last general election, but it soon dropped off the radar. It's not a massive vote winner but it would be a statement of intent, especially if it came as part of a package of "liberalising" measures. 

Speaking of which, I've just had an idea. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

As an existing Audi owner, I have just received a brochure for the new A4 which comes out in February. It looks great but I can't help thinking that today's cars are becoming the automotive equivalent of the nanny state.

For example, the new A4 offers something called 'Audi Adaptive Cruise Control' which not only programs the car to travel at a constant speed (admittedly useful with all those average speed cameras around) but also "lets you set the distance you wish to keep between you and the vehicle in front".

There's 'Audi Side Assist' that "alerts the driver to vehicles moving into the blind spot" when you are moving in excess of 40mph. And there's 'Audi Lane Assist' which alerts the driver before you unintentionally wander out of your lane. Presumably, if you intentionally change lanes (ie overtake) it emits a piercing scream. Last but not least, the new A4 has headlights that "automatically switch on in poor light conditions".

Like the nanny state, these features come at a price. Thankfully they are all options (ie you have a choice) otherwise the cost of a standard A4 (£24k) would be a lot more. My fear is that politicians will see these innovations and make them compulsory. (Why? Because they can!)

Anyway, when was the last time you "unwillingly changed lanes" or were caught out by your blind spot? (Sure, it happens, but is it worth an extra £2-3,000 on the price of your car?) As for "poor light conditions", I can decide that for myself, thank you very much. Mind you, the new daytime running lights look very pretty - damn the expense!

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne has been fined £100 after admitting using his mobile phone while driving. The Birmingham Hodge Hill MP, who pleaded guilty by letter, "said he had been taking an important call on a deportation matter but there was no excuse and he was remorseful". (Full story HERE.)

Let me get this right: a government minister says there was "no excuse" for his behaviour but he wants the judge - and no doubt the public - to know that he had been taking an "important call" on a "deportation" matter. (Nice touch.) If that's not an excuse I don't know what is.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg, favourite to win the Lib Dem leadership battle, vowed earlier this week that "he will break the law and refuse to provide details of his identity if the government presses ahead with plans to make ID cards compulsory". (Story HERE.)

I'm not in favour of ID cards, either. Nor am I a fan of a law which forbids, in any circumstances, the use of mobile phones when driving. The point is, here are two members of parliament, one a junior minister, the other a potential party leader, openly flouting or proposing to flout the law. I'm confused.

Evidence today that "public outrage" can have an effect on public policy. The Times reports that "The number of drivers caught by speed cameras has fallen for the first time, according to government figures which reveal that widespread complaints about excessive enforcement have finally caused the police and local authorities to retreat."

I won't bore you (again) with my own dark thoughts on speed cameras, but there is a lesson here for all of us. Full story HERE.

"Boris Johnson explains why cars are a force for liberty and democracy." See HERE.

The Observer reports that the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association, which represents local councils, is calling for a ban on smoking while driving "in an attempt to cut the number of crashes". According to the paper, the Department of Health said it would "seriously consider" a ban. (Full story HERE.)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the DoH. Surely smoking and driving is a matter for the Department of Transport? Last year the Driving Standards Agency, part of the DoT, invited a list of 'stakeholders' to contribute towards a review of the The Highway Code. "We wish to take account of the views of a wide range of stakeholders and others with an interest in road safety."

Needless to say representatives of smokers were excluded from the list, despite the fact that it was being suggested that smoking might be added to a list of distractions that should be avoided when driving. (Other activities, already on the list, include loud music, eating and drinking, reading maps, and arguing with passengers.)

Undeterred, Forest submitted a document to the DSA pointing out that "International studies show that smoking is one of the least distracting things a driver can do. Worse distractions include tuning the radio, changing a CD, or adjusting the climate controls. Talking to other passengers, even singing to oneself, is far more distracting than smoking. Accidents caused by smoking are negligible by comparison." (See HERE.)

The point is, while there are other distractions that are far more likely to lead to accidents, no-one has suggested that tuning the radio, adjusting climate controls or chatting to passengers should be made illegal while driving. In any case, we already have laws to combat reckless driving or driving without due care and attention. If it can be proved that smoking while driving is the direct cause of an accident, by all means prosecute the driver under existing laws. What we don't need is yet another law that is designed not to reduce the number of accidents but to stigmatise smokers and limit what adults can do in their own private space.

I was asked last week why a Routemaster bus is included in the Taking Liberties masthead. My family moved to Scotland when I was ten but before that I grew up in Maidenhead, Berkshire, and from time to time I would spend weekends and holidays in London with my aunt. I must have been five or six when these visits began and everywhere we went we travelled by bus. (I don't recall ever going on the Tube at that time.) My love of London - and the Routemaster - dates back to those exciting, liberating days.

Years later, when I moved to London, I travelled to work on the No 6, never tiring of the freedom to jump on and off that unique open platform without waiting for permission from driver or conductor. Like millions of people, I cannot begin to count the number of times I ran to catch the bus as it pulled away, leaping on to the platform and grabbing the pole to stop myself falling off. Elation tinged with relief!

A favourite memory is hanging off the platform one day as the bus sped off down Whitehall while a friend on a bike pedalled furiously, inches from the tailgate. Today, health & safety would frown on such behaviour - but in 50 years how many people were killed or seriously hurt jumping on or off a Routemaster bus?

By coincidence, another guest at the ICA on Friday night was Travis Elborough (left), author of The Bus We Loved: London's affair with the Routemaster (Granta, 2005). If anyone doubts the liberating qualities of this special vehicle I urge you to read the book. Or read THIS interview in which he says: "That bell, with its school orchestra triangle 'ding-ding', such a comic, comforting sound, will be hard to forget ... And lastly, of course, the open platform at the rear for that liberty to hop on and off, in a way that seemed somehow to acknowledge all the spontaneity of life in the capital."

Needless to say it was an interfering politician, Ken Livingstone, who abolished the Routemaster and replaced it with the notorious 'bendy bus' that Travis correctly describes as having "all the aesthetics of a Hoover attachment". Thanks to Ken we have lost a little bit of freedom. It's not much but all these things add up. Without the Routemaster our lives are a little less spontaneous and a little less fun.

"Speeding is endemic in Britain with around half the country's motorists regularly flouting the limit, according to figures released by the Department for Transport yesterday" (Daily Telegraph, April 6th). Only half? That beggars belief. Drive on any motorway in Britain and most drivers exceed the limit on a regular basis. And why not? Many of our current speed limits were set in the 1960s when the average family saloon struggled to go much faster than 70mph. (Even in the 80s my first 'proper' car, a sky blue Mini Metro, felt as if it was about to take off if I put my foot down and went anywhere above 80.) Braking distances are much improved too.

Now, I don't condone speeding in built up areas. On motorways, however, the national speed limit (70mph) is frankly ridiculous. Speed limits should be set in accordance with road conditions. Just as I expect to reduce my speed significantly through contraflows and roadworks, or in driving rain and fog, why can't I drive my Porsche (just joking!) at 100mph or more through Cumbria on a dry, deserted M6 at two o'clock in the morning?

These days we are bombarded with all sorts of electronic messages on overhead gantries: 'Long delays ahead', 'Don't drink and drive' etc etc. Why can't the same message boards be used to advise us of changes to the speed limit? The London Orbital (aka the M25) does this. However their definition of flexible is always down, never up. Instead of using technology to liberate us, it is used to restrict our freedoms.

There was talk, before the last election, that the Tories would increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph. At least one police force was said to be in favour. Sadly, in Dave Cameron's brave new world, the idea has disappeared without trace. Most people understand the need for restrictions in a small, crowded island, but there has to be a great deal more give and take. In their eagerness to legislate and dictate, politicians have forgotten the need to treat the majority of us in accordance with what we are - responsible adults.