40 items found for ""
- NEWSLETTERS | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
NEWSLETTERS This page contains a list of all past FFDF Newsletters which you can download as a pdf document by clicking on the Issue Number (except very old ones). If you cannot find something, use the Site-Search function. To register to receive a free copy of our communications via email, go here: Register. IMPORTANT NOTE: Newsletters in pdf format are no longer published. All news is now put on our blog (click on to access). Issue No 91 (Apr 2023) Recent Blog Posts, Disabled Motoring, Twenty Yeas of Campaigns. Issue No 90 (Feb 2023) St. Pauls Gyratory Redesign, Mayor's Budget, Evaluation of E-Scooter Trials, The Myth of the 15-Minute City, Wandsworth 20 MPH Limits, ULEZ Extension. Issue No 89 (Dec 2022) 15MPH Limits in London, A New Money Making Wheeze, Fines for Speeding Rising, Speed Camera Racket, Surge in Driving Fines, LTNs Don't Work and Oxford, H&F and Lambeth LTNs, Fraudulent Traffic Counts, Mayor Expands ULEZ, Mayor's Strategy Failing, Transport Disruptions, FFDF Web Site, Judicial Reviews, Holborn Gyratory, Bromley Policies, Profiting from Parking, CPZs, Letters to the Editor. Older newsletters are listed below. Issue No 88 (Oct 2022) ULEZ Expansion - A Fraud, Latest Air Quality in Bromley, Bromley Council Opposes ULEZ Expansion, Spurious Evidence on the Benefits of LTNs, Sadiq Khan's Book, Tower Hamlets Legal Action on LTN, Cambridge and New York Congestion Charges, Telegraph article on Our Right to Drive Freely, The Death of the UK Motor Industry, TfL Board Meeting and TfL Finances, Another Bail-Out for TfL, Truss Victory, New Transport Ministers, Shapp's Bus Fare Cap, Oxfordshire to Ban Cars, ANPR Eroding Privacy, Regulating Cycling, Park Lane Cycle Lane, Electric Cars More Expensive, Number Plate Cloning, Greenwich Transport Policy, Speed Humps, Pay By Phone Parking, Volvo Laser Sensors. Issue No 87 (Aug 2022) ULEZ Expansion, ULEZ Expansion Cost, Mayor's False Claims, Euston Road Changes, School Streets in Bromley, Energy Security Bill, Train Strikes, Census Results, Road Safety Investigation. Issue No 86 (Jun 2022) The Police, Crime....and Courts Act, The Queens Speech, Pedicabs to be Regulated, Local Elections Postmortem, Minor Accident in Chislehurst, TfL Performance Report, Bus Routes Being Cut, ULEZ Expansion, Petition Against 20 Limits, Good News and Bad. Issue No 85 (Apr 2022) Using PCNs to Raise Council Funds, Expansion of the ULEZ, Clogging Up London's Road Network, New York and London Congestion Charging, How Many Objections in Lewisham to the LTN?, Petition re Road Safety in Chislehurst, Driver Education Courses, Road Pricing Is Coming, SUVs and Campaign Against, Manchester Campaign Against CAZ and Bromley Air Quality, London Bus Action Plan, Sadiq Khan Wanted Your Views?, How the World Really Works, Improving Our Campaigns Issue No 84 (Feb 2022) Making London Transport More Sustainable, Mayor Pleads - Now Threatens, Congestion Tax Changes, London Most Congested City, Travel in London Report, Sadiq Khan's Budget, Sadiq Khan's Plan, More Cycling?, Bromley Road Safety Record, New Deputy Transport Mayor, Legal Challenge Rejected, Slowing London Down, Lewisham LTN Decision, News Wrap Up, Traffic Calming Delays, Tottenham Court Road Consultation, Bishopsgate Road Closure, Letter to M.P., Range Anxiety Solved? Issue No 83 (Dec 2021) Transport Crisis in London, How to Reform London's Transport, ULEZ Expansion, ULEZ Had Minimal Impact, Air Pollution in London, Electric Buses in Bromley, Electric Vehicles and Pod Point IPO, Vision Zero Failing, Insulate Britain Protestors Jailed, The Changing Face of Car Ownership, Southwark Ignores Dulwich Objections, Car Usage in Lambeth, Closing Station Car Parks, Smart Motorways, TfL Consultations, LGO Spineless, Letter to Politicians. Issue No 82 (Oct 2021) Roads Blocked by Protestors, Latest Road Casualty Data, Air Quality in Lewisham, Diesel Emission Claims, IPCC Report, Making Electric Vehicles Practical, Electric Cars, Micro Cars and Cargo Bikes, Justice Denied. Issue No 81 (Aug 2021) Government Powers Ahead with Decarbonisation, Mayor Raking It In From ULEZ, ULEZ Costs Rise Again, Air Pollution Data in London, Subsidies to Electric Vehicles, The Cause of London's Problems, Andy Byford Speaks, Inflexible Trains and Trams, Transport Action Network Lose Legal Case, Changes to the Highway Code, Gear Change - Downwards, Congestion Charge Change, Do LTNs Cut Accidents?, Beech Street to Reopen, New TfL Hub, Lower Thames Crossing, Dulwich LTN, Croydon Decides on ANPR, Lewisham Cancels School Streets, Lewisham LTN Consultation, Walking the Streets, Lewisham Survey Results. Issue No 80 (Jun 2021) Election Results, The Mayor's Priorities, New York, Expanded ULEZ, Electric Cars, Avoiding Road Taxes, Great British Railways Plan, Transport Commissioner and Mayor's Special Pleading, Millions Collected in Fines, Biggin Hill Airport, Electric Boris Bikes, Crossing Lights at Red, E-Scooters Trial, The Danger of Cycling, Speed Awareness Courses, Surveys Against LTNs, In Praise of the Car, Harrow Scraps LTNs. Issue No 79 (Apr 2021) More Changes at Bank, Why LTNs are Failing, Delays to Emergency Services, School Streets, LTNs Force Vehicles into Poorer Roads, Judical Reviews, Camden Road Closures, Greenwich LTN, Opposition to Enfield Regime, Horn Park and Weigall Road LTN, FOI Request Ignored, Albemarle Road Bromley, Better Deal for Bus Users?, Profits from Parking, Blackwall Tunnel Fire, Police Bill, Towing Away of Vehicles, London Elections. Back to Resources Issue No 78 (Feb 2021) Streetspace Plan Overturned, Legal Action Against LTNs, LTNs Not Popular, LTNs Are Collapsing, Pollution in LTN Rose, Nigel Farage's Pledge, Emergency Service Access Problems, Ella Kissi-Debrah Inquest, Turning London Into a Ghetto, Tax Rises From the Mayor of London. Note: Newsletters published in 2010 to 2020 were published under a different name and are not stored on our web site but can be supplied upon request. The contents are given in this document: Archive-London-Newsletters BBRAG Newsletters (1999-2009). Note that before 2010 there was a newsletter issued by the Bromley Borough Roads Action Group (BBRAG) which covered many of the same issues. These go back as far as 1999. The BBRAG web site is now archived, but this document contains a list of the newsletter contents which are still available upon request: BBRAG-Newsletters.
- REGISTER | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
- CONFIRMATION | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
THANK YOU Thanks for contacting us. We will respond as soon as possible. Click here to return to Home Page.
- USEFUL LINKS | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
USEFUL LINKS This page contains links to other web sites that may be of interest. Please let us know if you have suggestions for other links. Sometimes links stop working because sites are closed down or their address is changed. Please let us know if there are any problems with any links. Greater London Authority. GLA and Mayor of London policies and news: www.london.gov.uk Transport for London. Part of the GLA that deals with transport matters. Lots of useful information including details of the Congestion Charging Scheme: www.tfl.gov.uk London Journey Planner. Part of the Transport for London site. It enables you to plan your journey by train, bus, tube, etc: www.journeyplanner.org London Traffic News. Traffic news in London provided by Transport for London: www.tfl.gov.uk/trafficnews London Underground. Information on tube services: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/ London Congestion/ULEZ Charging. Information on the London congestion charge and the ULEZ and a way to pay them: www.cclondon.com Department for Transport. Lots of government info on transport, road safety, etc: www.gov.uk/dft DfT Transport Statistics. Useful national transport data: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/about/statistics Highways England. Travel updates. Information on the national road network: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/travel-updates/ Transport Research Laboratory. Publish independent reports on transport matters: www.trl.co.uk The Public Purpose. A site containing much useful information on public transport in the USA, but also contains useful data on London and UK transport: www.publicpurpose.com UK National Air Quality. Information site on air pollution: www.airquality.co.uk London Air Quality Network. Information site on air pollution in London: https://www.londonair.org.uk Campaign for Freedom of Information. Useful info on getting information from government bodies: www.cfoi.org.uk StreetMap. Enter a street name or post code and it gives you a local map: www.streetmap.co.uk/ Train Timetables. UK rail network schedules: www.nationalrail.co.uk Trainline: Train and bus schedules and fares: https://www.thetrainline.com/ YourParkingSpace. Enables you to find the nearest/cheapest parking in London: https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk AppealNow. Provides assistance for appealing parking ticket and London Congestion charge penalty notices: www.appealnow.com Crash Map. Provides maps of all road traffic accidents: www.crashmap.co.uk Back to Resources
- LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS This page covers many of the articles we have published on our blog that explain the disadvantages of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) although they sometimes masquerade under different names. Their common objective is to cut traffic so as to reduce air pollution and provide other benefits but the claims made for them are a mirage. The evidence contradicts those claims. The articles are listed in date order (latest first) and may be added to as others are published (or use the blog search facility to find others). Spurious Evidence on the Benefits of LTNs: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2022/09/04/spurious-evidence-on-the-benefits-of-ltns/ Why LTNs are Failing: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/why-ltns-are-failing-and-deserve-to-do-so/ High Court Hearing on Judicial Reviews: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/02/13/high-court-hearing-on-jrs-and-camden-road-closures/ Greenwich LTN and Opposition to Enfield Regime: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/02/10/greenwich-ltn-and-opposition-to-enfield-regime/ LTNs Collapsing: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/01/30/ltns-collapsing-under-public-and-legal-pressure-croydon-the-latest/ Legal Actions Against LTNs Escalating: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/01/27/legal-actions-against-ltns-escalating/ LTNs Are Not Popular: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/ltns-are-not-popular/ Croydon Council Supporting LTN Despite Overwhelming Public Opposition: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2021/01/10/croydon-ltn-supported-by-council-despite-overwhelming-opposition / Pollution in LTN Rose, Nigel Farage’s Roads Election Pledge and Emergency Service Access Problems: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/12/07/pollution-in-ltn-rose-nigel-farages-roads-election-pledge-and-emergency-service-access-problems/ London Opposition to LTNs, Lewisham Council Meeting, Commonplace and Ealing Opposed to LTNs: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/london-opposition-to-ltns-lewisham-council-meeting-commonplace-and-ealing-opposed-to-ltns/ Croydon Streetspace Consultation: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/11/07/croydon-streetspace-consultation/ Legal Action Over LTNs: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/sadiq-khan-bailed-out-again-and-legal-action-over-ltns/ The Consequences of Shutting Out Traffic: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/the-consequences-of-shutting-out-traffic/ Government Rejects Popular E-Petition Against Road Closures https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/government-rejects-popular-e-petition-against-road-closures/ The LTN, Air Pollution and Climate Emergency in Lewisham: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/10/26/the-ltn-air-pollution-and-climate-emergency-in-lewisham/ Demo Against LTN and LibDem Opinion Poll: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/10/04/demo-against-ltn-libdem-opinion-poll-and-tranche-2-funding/ Does Closing Roads Reduce Air Pollution and Improve Health?: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/09/11/does-closing-roads-reduce-air-pollution-and-improve-health/ Are There Any Benefits from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/are-there-any-benefits-from-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltns/ Air Quality and the ULEZ: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/07/06/air-quality-and-the-ulez-its-a-vindictive-but-unjustified-measure/ More on Shapps Announcement: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/05/11/more-on-shapps-announcements-and-abd-press-release/ Spending £0.5 Million with NO Justification: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/lewisham-spending-0-5-million-with-no-justification/ Mini-Hollands and Why Road Closures May Be Illegal: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/02/24/mini-hollands-and-why-road-closures-may-be-illegal/ The Impact of Delays to Emergency Vehicles: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/01/06/keep-la-moving-and-the-impact-of-delays-to-emergency-vehicles/ Back to London-Road-Closures
- GREENWICH ROAD TOLLS CAMPAIGN | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
GREENWICH ROAD TOLLS CAMPAIGN This page covers the successful campaign against proposals for congestion charging in the London Borough of Greenwich, and what we said at the time. In 2005/6, Transport for London (TfL) and Greenwich Council conducted a joint study of “road traffic demand management” in the Greenwich area. This included consideration of a congestion charge tax (ie. a road toll) on the area bounded by the A102 and A2 – which includes Greenwich park and Greenwich town centre. As you can see on the map, the proposal also covered the Blackwall Tunnel and one option that was discussed, even if a wide area charge like the central London congestion tax was not implemented, was to impose a toll on the Blackwall Tunnel. The Blackwall Tunnel and the A2 are of course the main routes used by traffic from South-East London and Kent to reach central London. The joint study of the options had been supported by surveys of residents – by Accent Group and by Mori. The latter survey asked respondents to consider two possible zones – marked A and B on the map, the time of operation and the charges - £2, £4 or £6 were mentioned, but that it might be higher for larger vehicles. Note that the proposed charging zone also included the A2209 (Deptford Church Street) to the west which is the normal way for traffic from the Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe and Southwark areas to avoid Greenwich town centre, and it might also cover the A2 over Blackheath so most of the diversionary routes would also be covered. In fact to avoid paying the charge, traffic would have had to go through the centre of Lewisham which is already severely congested, or take some minor back roads. Clearly this congestion tax would not be readily avoidable by most traffic. In addition a lot of traffic would likely divert to other river crossings that are already heavily congested. It is worth pointing out that the use of “surveys” to lead public opinion in the preferred direction was a common element of TfL practices. By using a biased survey they can pretend that people support a scheme without doing open and full consultation. And of course there was no attempt to consult the road users, such as people who use the Blackwall Tunnel. Bob Neill, MP for Bromley and Chislehurst spoke in the House of Commons on this issue in questions to then Minister Stephen Ladyman. When talking about the proposed Greenwich scheme he said “That would have ramifications well beyond Greenwich and the immediate area and would have an enormous impact on the national traffic network, including the A2 and A20, which are key feeder roads into London”. He requested the greatest possible public consultation be undertaken and that such a scheme not be imposed against the will of the public. Transport Innovation Fund The funding for the initial studies came from central Government’s Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) for congestion schemes. The TIF funds were being used to bribe local authorities to set up congestion charging and road pricing schemes because the Government realised how politically sensitive such schemes are and did not want to be seen as promoting them directly. Of course if you get a local scheme in somewhere like Greenwich, which encourages traffic to avoid the area, then you generate major congestion problems in adjoining areas which in due course can then justify their own scheme. In the TfL Bid document it points out: “…any attempt to impose significant peak hour traffic reduction on Greenwich Town Centre would give rise to objections similar to those associated with the earlier lorry ban. Measures that serve only to reduce traffic in one locality by transferring it to other equally sensitive locations, clearly, offer no net community benefits, while proposals that benefit one interest group by inconveniencing others will always present difficult choices. The Council would not wish to be a party to measures that are liable to inflict detriment on other communities or local authorities.” This revealing document even manages to suggest that because of the problems of traffic diversion if a congestion charge was introduced at peak periods, it might be best to introduce an “off-peak only” charge – this would definitely be a world first – a congestion charge when there was no congestion! But Greenwich estimated the cost of a scheme at over £100 million, an enormous amount of money with no clear benefits. The Problems of Greenwich Greenwich town centre has been a notorious traffic bottleneck for many years. The nature of the geography also causes any generated air pollution over a wide area to collect in the river valley. Two alternative solutions have been suggested in the past to remove traffic from the town centre and enhance this World Heritage site – the first was to improve the A2 route over Blackheath, possibly by using a tunnel to avoid damage to the park – the second was by constructing a new road along the river frontage – both projects were effectively blocked by environmental objectors. Air Pollution Issues In 2002, an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) was adopted by Greenwich because of the known air pollution problems on some of the major roads. But although clearly many of the major routes in Greenwich generate much air pollution from traffic (for example the Blackwall Tunnel handles over 100,000 vehicles per day with heavy congestion during rush hours), it is not at all clear what the overall impact of traffic is on air pollution levels in Greenwich. Indeed the report fudges many of the key issues. For example it says “local road transport constitutes approximately 28 to 80% of NOx emissions in the borough…” and “approximately 50% of the remaining background sources arise from road transport sources outside the borough”. For PM10 (particulates) it says “between 5% and 40% of concentrations result from primary road transport emissions in the borough, depending on location, with approximately 60 to 95% arising from background sources”. In reality nobody knows how much general air pollution in Greenwich comes from local traffic, from industrial or other sources, or how much from outside the borough. The proposed plans also didn’t seem to have taken any account of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) which now covers the whole of the greater London area and will reduce emissions from HGVs and buses quite substantially in the next few years. In addition the general improvement in the technology of vehicles is reducing emissions by large amounts. Note that private cars seem to produce less than 20% of total emissions of pollutants such as PM10s as HGVs, LGVs, buses and taxis are the main sources. It is also worth pointing out that the central London Congestion Charge has not resulted in improved air quality within the congestion charge zone. We suggested that it was unnecessary to introduce congestion charges in Greenwich to tackle air pollution issues and doing so would not be effective in tackling air pollution. We said more steps should be taken to reduce congestion which itself is the major cause of such pollution. Cessation of the Blackwall Tunnel Tidal Flow One action that was taken by TfL was the cessation of the Blackwall Tunnel tidal flow system. This undoubtedly increased congestion, and hence resulted in higher air pollution. They justified this on the grounds of safety but the tidal flow system has been in use for 30 years without major incident, the accident statistics show that the tunnel actually has fewer reported accidents than most major roads in London, and independent consultants had actually recommended that alternative measures to improve safety be taken. TfL went ahead and stopped the tidal flow system without any public consultation, not even with the local boroughs, and without any prior notice. Of course many commentators have said that as allegedly happened with the London congestion charge, if you first make congestion worse then there is more justification for introducing congestion charges. How We Opposed the Proposals We mounted a major public campaign to have road tolls in Greenwich thrown out. The public do not like road tolls of any form, and these proposals were in essence just an attempt by anti-car fanatics to raise the cost of motoring and restrict your freedom of movement. An on-line petition was set up to assist. We circulated over 100,000 leaflets to residents of the borough of Greenwich and received hundreds of responses. As we received an enormous response to our leaflet on the proposed congestion charge in Greenwich, but Transport for London still had not published their detailed proposals, we held a public meeting on Saturday the 22nd September 2007 at Mycenae House in Blackheath. On the 4th November 2007, we issued a press release which showed that based on the surveys undertaken by Transport for London, there was overwhelming opposition to any congestion charge scheme in Greenwich. Only 16% supported such an idea, with 77% opposed according to the latest survey. Soon after (in 2008) Mayor Livingstone was of course ejected by the electorate in favour of Boris Johnson who had publicly opposed any extension of congestion charging to Greenwich or other outer London boroughs. He also made a manifesto commitment to reinstate the Blackwall Tunnel Tidal Flow. Indeed it was said by some commentators that Mr Johnson won the election because of the votes of Londoners in South East London stimulated by a local motorists pressure group, but you can take that with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately, he subsequently reneged on his commitment to reinstate the Blackwall Tunnel Tidal Flow system. Back to Campaigns
- ENVIRONMENT | The Freedom for Drivers Foundation
ENVIRONMENT Environment and Air Pollution The Freedom for Drivers Foundation has been very concerned with the misinformation that has been spread by the national media about the impact of air pollution from vehicles on the health of the population. We believe it is not a major health crisis but simply a major health scare fed to a gullible public by journalists wanting a story. The promotion of such stories has also led to Government over-reaction and a number of local councils proposing "Clean Air Zone" schemes aimed at restricting some vehicles from entering some roads or charging them extra to do so in the name of reducing pollution. London is in the forefront of charging drivers using pollution as an excuse (e.g. from the ULEZ), but many other cities are planning similar schemes. The prime objective often appears to be simply the desire to extract money from car drivers and other vehicle users. We have published a full analysis of the issues that actually gives the truth about the claims made for air pollution, and rebuts many of the allegations. It is entitled “Air Quality and Vehicles: The Truth” and can be downloaded from here: Air-Quality Please read it. But here’s a summary of the contents: Is there actually a public health crisis? The simple answer is NO. The evidence does not support such claims. In reality air quality has been steadily improving and will continue to do so from technical improvements to vehicles. Meanwhile life expectancy has been increasing. There is no public health crisis! Life expectancy might be improved slightly, for example by a few days if all air pollution was removed. But air pollution does not just come from vehicles but from many other sources of human activity such as heating, industrial processes, farming, building, cooking and domestic wood burners. Only about 50% comes from transport. The air outside is typically cleaner than in people's own homes or in offices and that is where they spend most of the time. Removing all air pollution would be economically very expensive and leave us with no transport (buses, trains, aeroplanes or cars) and also stop all deliveries of food and other goods. You would not want to live in such a world. We give all the evidence on our claims above in the aforementioned paper. But the FFDF does accept that air pollution does need to be improved, particularly in certain locations, and we recognise public concern about it. However, we argue that measures taken to improve matters should be proportionate and cost effective. There needs to be a proper cost/benefit analysis before imposing restrictions or charges. There are many measures that can be used to reduce vehicle emissions without restricting motorists or imposing major extra costs on them. There is certainly no need to panic over air pollution! Previous comments we have made on the air quality issue, including detailed analysis of the London ULEZ are given below: The budget figures for the ULEZ disclosed by TfL (after an FOI act request), our own estimates of the revenue which were wildly different, and the cost/benefit ratio, are contained in this document: Cost-of-the-ULEZ . Subsequently TfL disclosed some more estimates of the likely income and operating costs of the ULEZ which appear more realistic. An updated note on that subject was issued in January 2019 here: Profits-from-the-ULEZ. The financial forecasts on the expansion of the ULEZ to the North/South Circular were given in this blog post in April 2020: ULEZ-Expansion. It is clear then that it made no financial sense at all. In 2021, the cost of the expanded ULEZ rose again to £130 million - see this blog article: Latest-Costs. The initial ULEZ in central London made minimal impact on air pollution - see this blog Minimal Impact . For two good articles on the negative benefits of the ULEZ expansion by Dr. Michael Simon see: Costs-vs-Benefits and Uzeless-Expansion An interesting paper was produced by Neil Oliver on the "Social Costs of Air Pollution from Cars in the UK" in August 2017. It can be read here: Social-Costs-Cars A note on the data on life expectancy published by the ONS in December 2018 which shows that air pollution in London is certainly not a major health crisis and in fact it helps you to live in the most polluted central London boroughs is present here: Life-Expectancy As air pollution is a hot topic at present, there are likely to be more articles on the London Blog - use the blog search to find more. Back to Resources
- PETITION TO REMOVE SPEED HUMPS | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
PETITION TO REMOVE SPEED HUMPS Petition Against Speed Humps in Chislehurst Written April 2008 Back in 1998, the Bromley Borough Roads Action Group (BBRAG) was formed to oppose the proposed installation of speed humps in Manor Park Road and Watts Lane, Chislehurst (in the London Borough of Bromley). This scheme consisted of 5 round-top humps and 7 speed cushions in what was a relatively quiet road for most of the day. Although there is a large school nearby, school run traffic actually slows vehicles so no schoolchildren had been injured on the road in recent years. Most residents thought it was a total waste of money (cost of £40,000) and did not want the humps, but the scheme was unfortunately at the time supported by councillors and council staff and gained marginal support from residents by the use of a biased consultation leaflet. This was of course long before the disadvantages of humps had become widely known and such evidence promoted internationally by the BBRAG Chairman. In 2006 an analysis of the impact of the humps on accidents in the roads was done. In essence it showed that there was no statistical evidence of any improvement in the accident rate. See Speed-Hump-Effects for details. So recently we launched a petition among local residents to have them removed. This was done by house-to-house canvassing of immediately adjacent streets and a leaflet drop to a wider area (that used in the original consultation). The results were 258 signatures obtained in support (that compares with only 85 people who responded to the original council consultation). That implies that 76% of people who were personally approached (63 out of 83) signed the petition, clear evidence of the strength of support for removing the humps. The petition has now been submitted to Environment Portfolio Holder Councillor Colin Smith. We await a response, but note that we asked for alternative traffic calming measures to be installed to replace the humps. Roger Lawson Postscript: The result of the petition was that Mr Smith promised that when the road was due for resurfacing, a public consultation would be undertaken to determine whether there was support to remove the humps. That was all he was willing to commit to. But we will ensure that this promise is adhered to. Back to Speed Humps Main Page
- CROYDON 20 MPH CAMPAIGN | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
CROYDON 20 MPH CAMPAIGN SAY NO TO A BLANKET 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN CROYDON Do you want to be fined £100, or more, for driving at 24 mph in Croydon? Or lose your licence if caught more than once? In 2017 Croydon Council consulted on plans to make almost all roads in Croydon subject to a 20 mph limit. They pushed ahead with spending £300,000 of your taxpayers money on North Croydon despite wide opposition and a rigged consultation vote and with another £300,000 in North-East Croydon. They subsequently spent similar sums on the remaining three regions in Croydon. The only roads to keep the 30mph limit are a few selected main roads. Restricting vehicles to 20 mph increases journey times substantially, while there is no proven road safety benefit of such speed limits. Indeed, the council chose to pre-empt a Government study of the issue. Forcing people to travel at no more than 20 means more fuel consumption and will cause more air pollution. Croydon Council pushed ahead without regard to the enormous number of objections submitted. This was both unethical and undemocratic. The electorate of Croydon should bear this in mind the next time they elect their local councillors. Below is what we published on this subject. More information and why this blanket 20mph limit approach is wrong. When councils do a proper consultation on 20 mph limits, nearly 70% say NO - for example as in Worthing. But you have to object yourself or this will be imposed against your will! Do we really want drivers fined and points on their licence for going at over 20 mph anywhere in Croydon? Many roads in the area already have speed humps to reduce traffic speeds and many of the injuries to pedestrians and cyclists in Croydon occur at low speeds on main roads. The road safety benefits of a wide area 20 mph limit will be minimal and there are no other real benefits. Why make a change that is bound to lead to many more vehicles breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit? Don’t fall for the council’s anti-car propaganda. 20 MPH IS TOO SLOW FOR A MAXIMUM LIMIT Do you really think that 20 mph is appropriate for roads such as Davidson Road or Birchanger Road (in Zone 2) or Auckland Road, Grange Road and Northwood Road which are in Zone 1 (photos below)? Back to Campaigns
- HOME | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
The FFDF Promotes the Interests of Drivers THE FREEDOM FOR DRIVERS FOUNDATION The Freedom for Drivers Foundation (FFDF) is a body that aims to educate the public about the benefits of road vehicles. With cars, vans and taxis accounting for 80% of the mileage of all trips in the UK, and over 65% of goods being carried by road, the road network and the people who use it are of vital importance to the nation's economy. Drivers should expect the road network to be improved and maintained to a standard that is fit for purpose, and that includes in London. They should be able to use the roads in a safe and responsible manner without being subject to unreasonable restrictions or charges and petty bureaucracy. In particular the FFDF campaigns for: Greater investment in the road network to cut congestion. Better parking provision. No road tolls or congestion taxes. More intelligent and evidence based road safety policies. Reduced taxes on owning and running cars. It is unfortunate that transport policies in the last few years have been dominated by anti-car factions who either hate cars or are cycling fanatics. As a result, we have very unbalanced transport policies in the country and particularly in London which impose enormous costs on residents and visitors. Public transport is massively subsidised while private transport is penalised and discouraged. The latest example of this is the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods where roads are closed to vehicles, which is creating massive increases in congestion. This web site is a source of information on traffic and transport issues and covers our news reports and campaigns. Go to About for more information on the FFDF in London and our national activities. Go to Register if you want to sign up for our free newsletters . Make sure you object to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods which have caused more traffic congestion and more air pollution. Latest News This is the latest news. Go to the Blog for more news, or follow us on Twitter , or use the site search facility - see top of page - to explore the site. Opposition to Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS). The FFDF is opposing many aspects of Sadiq Khan's London Transport Strategy and the "London Plan". Go here for more information and how you can object: Against-MTS Campaign against road closures caused by Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Streetspace policy that are creating more congestion: London-road-closures Three of the most important issues for London drivers are the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax), 20 MPH Speed Limits and Parking. We have specific pages to cover those topics - summarised below. The London Congestion Charge is one of the most controversial measures imposed by car hating Mayor Ken Livingstone. It has been supported by subsequent Mayors and other politicians even though it had no significant impact on traffic congestion in central London (claims by TfL that it did are simply wrong). It is also a simplistic system while being very expensive to run. Go here for more information: Congestion . 20 mph speed limits have been adopted over wide areas. Often these are “signed only” limits which have not been shown to have any road safety benefits. We are not opposed to 20 mph speed limits in appropriate areas (where traffic speeds are near that limit) but we oppose their adoption where there are no rational reasons to slow traffic and increase journey times. See the Road Safety page for more information There are also a number of articles on our Blog on this topic. Restrictions on parking and excessive charges for doing so are a common complaint in London and other cities. Local boroughs make millions of pounds from motorists and use the money to subsidise other budgets, sometimes illegally. Go to Parking for articles on that topic including Permit Parking schemes and Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).
- ABOUT | The Freedom for Drivers Foundation
ABOUT THE FREEDOM FOR DRIVERS FOUNDATION The Freedom for Drivers Foundation (FFDF) is an independent organisation that simply represents the views of our supporters who are representative of the mass of road users in the UK. Anyone can register to support our policies. We promote your views to national and local Government bodies and provide information to our supporters and the general public. We try to counter the misinformation spread by many people on the use of private vehicles, and we promote freedom of choice about how you travel. Don’t let the anti-car fanatics drive you, or price you off the roads. This organisation was originally formed by Roger Lawson to deal with traffic and transport issues in Southeast London but expanded later to cover all of London and the wider UK. This page contains more background information on how the FFDF represents UK motorists. It also covers our policies. Our objective is to provide an active, responsible voice to lobby on behalf of Britain's drivers. We believe that official policies in recent years, both from the national Government and from London bodies such as the Greater London Authority (headed by the Mayor of London) and Transport for London have discriminated against drivers and private vehicle owners for no good reason. The financial incentives to favour public transport are misguided in essence. Road Pricing and Congestion Tolls Many people are promoting road pricing and congestion tolls which can mean higher taxes for the average road user. For example, the London Congestion Charge has not been a success despite claims that it has and is enormously expensive to operate. It is a simple and crude system and with other cities developing CAZ schemes would it not be better to consider a national road pricing scheme? Taxation Each year the Government raises over £50 billion in taxes from road users but only a small fraction of the money raised is spent on improving our roads (about £7bn). The result — you end up sitting in traffic jams. Any road pricing scheme needs to ensure that the overall level of taxes paid by drivers does not rise. Road Safety Road safety policy has become distorted in the UK by anti-car and anti-motorist policies. Speed cameras breed like rabbits so that millions of people now receive speeding fines, but road deaths are barely dropping. A whole industry has developed from collecting money from motorists in the name of road safety when there is no hard scientific evidence for any benefit and the UK is falling behind other countries in reducing casualties. Speed humps have sprouted everywhere causing major problems for people with medical conditions, delays to emergency vehicles, more noise/air pollution, constant annoyance to road users and much higher costs from vehicle damage. But there is no evidence of any net benefit. Parking Parking costs are rising rapidly, and provision falling, as local authorities use it as a “demand management” technique to cut traffic – in reality they just make life enormously inconvenient for the typical motorist. Decriminalised parking regulations and fixed penalty notices for bus lane and box junction infringements erode your basic human rights to a fair hearing and are often used primarily to raise money by local councils in London. The Environment The use of road transport is being attacked on environmental grounds. But air pollution from private cars has been falling substantially and technology is going to make matters even better over the next few years. Emissions from all kinds of transport are only a fraction of total air pollutants, and those from private cars an even smaller factor. Unreasonable and unnecessary attacks on car usage will not solve any environmental problems. The people questioning the use of private cars are often unreasonably prejudiced or ignore the facts. This Web Site This web site does not just explain our policies. It also contains all the facts and figures to support those policies and is a mine of information on transport issues, particularly in London. Our past newsletters (see Newsletters ) which are downloadable from the site in full also contain many relevant articles. The web site and all past newsletters can easily be searched for information that is of interest by using the site Search facility - see box at top of page. If you can't find what you are looking for, require specific advice or simply wish to send us some comments, go to the Contact page. This web site concentrates on traffic and transport issues and our past campaigns to support motorists. See this page for information on campaigns: Campaigns or our blog for the latest news. Why You Should Support Us Private cars and motorbikes provide the most flexible, and most cost-effective transport mode and are used for more than 85% of journeys. Those who wish to stop you using them often have vested interests in public transport or otherwise wish to curtail your freedom. JOIN TO SUPPORT OUR ACTIVITIES If you want to learn more about our activities and receive the latest transport news just register to receive our newsletters for free here: REGISTER
- RICHMOND PERMIT PARKING | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
RICHMOND PERMIT PARKING This page covers the campaign against the Emission Based Permit Parking scheme introduced by the London Borough of Richmond in 2007 (see bottom of page for the ultimate success of this campaign). This article was published in Jan 2007: The London Borough of Richmond have recently announced major increases in parking charges (they expect to collect at least £1million more). One additional element in their proposals is to charge permit parking scheme users based on the CO2 emissions of their vehicles. This could result in some residents paying as much as £300 per year, instead of £100. A press release said the following: “Richmond’s New Parking Charges Miss the Point, says drivers’ group. Richmond council has hit the headlines today by announcing they will charge residents more to park outside their homes if they own ‘gas guzzling’ cars. The new tax is an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. In any case, targeting a small minority of car users will not make any significant impact on CO2 emissions. One of the most interesting recent statements from Transport for London in their submissions on the Thames Gateway Bridge inquiry was the following statement: “Private cars constitute only 10% of total UK CO2 emissions, and the position appears to be both under control and improving, largely due to technology”. If you assume only 10% of cars are “gas guzzlers” and their owners all moved to smaller cars (with about half the CO2 emissions), then the net impact will be 0.5% of CO2 emitted in Richmond. But of course most of them will not, and many cars are parked off the street so the net impact will clearly be imperceptible. These charges are obviously not about improving emissions, but simply about raising more money for hard pressed council budgets from local residents.” The council’s consultation document provided little information on the likely impact of these proposals which in reality were likely to reduce CO2 emissions by less than 0.25%. Campaign We mounted a campaign to defeat these proposals and circulated over 7,000 leaflets to residents in permit parking zones within the borough of Richmond. There were several hundred responses. Liberal Democrat councillors who thought up this idea got a lot more objections than they expected. Press coverage was also strongly in opposition and it is astonishing to see the numbers and type of people who supported our stance – even people who don’t own cars! There was a general consensus that the proposals were “gesture politics” of the worst kind and “green policies” were being used to extract more money from impoverished motorists. This article was published in March 2007 about the subsequent public meeting at the council: Our supporters in London have been campaigning against the proposed implementation of changes to permit parking charges in the London Borough of Richmond. The new charges will be based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle – low emission vehicles will pay less and those in the highest band will pay three times as much. There is also a much higher charge for a second vehicle. Needless to say that there was widespread consternation among residents who live in permit parking zones when these proposals were first announced. Even non car owners and people with a strong commitment to environmental issues thought the proposals were a nonsense. Supporters distributed some 7000 leaflets encouraging residents to object to the proposals, which got a good response. Roger Lawson and other members of the public spoke against the proposals at a council meeting. One particularly interesting speaker was Michael Williams, a market research expert, who confirmed that in his view the council's survey form was a good example of bad survey design as it was clearly designed to bias the answer. Richmond Election Result (Article published in June 2010). One of the most gratifying results in the London Council elections, at least to your editor, was the loss of the London Borough of Richmond to the Conservatives by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats in Richmond adopted many “anti-car” policies, and when they proposed a “CO2-based” permit parking charge we joined in the democratic opposition to it. There was widespread public revolt which culminated in a public meeting organised by the council where almost all the audience was against it. The local Conservative manifesto included an “End to the war on high streets, adopt fair parking policies and scrap failed CPZ tax surcharge on parking permits” and they have subsequently announced they will be scrapping this scheme. Even more satisfying was the eviction of former LibDem Council Leader Serge Lourie who lost his seat by just 6 votes. He did not seem to believe in democracy (at least in terms of the public getting what they wanted) from his handling of the affair. Conservatives also won two local parliamentary seats from the Liberal Democrats. Of course there may have been other factors at work in these successes but it shows how local democracy does work when issues which personally affect them are presented to the voters in the right way. Back to Campaigns