22 August 2005
Living in the best world possible
Among the people who spend much of their time living outside what some might call the real world are philosophy lecturers and Green councillors with responsibility for transport. So Dr Rupert Read, who is both, has a particular problem.
He has a “utopian view of life”, according to one of his fellow transport specialists – and this is to be welcomed in a world where psychologist Dr Susan Blackmore says we are “just evolving creatures in the midst of a pointless universe”.
If the Blackmore scenario is true, why bother? Why not pollute, destroy, use up and throw away? The Greens, Dr Read and I share an abhorrence for such a philosophy, as I hope would many EDP readers, but there is evidence that many others go along with it. Just look at the litter.
Dr Read would like us to walk or cycle wherever we can. So would I, and as rail travel gets ever less reliable and buses become incoherent and increasingly expensive, it is not surprising that he views public transport as a less desirable option.
Walking and cycling are fine if you are “well fit”, as one of Dr Read’s friends might describe him. But the hills of Norwich are not exactly conducive to indiscriminate cycling, and neither walking nor cycling can cope with the loads many people have to carry. Age and ill health hinders many.
He should therefore admit that cars have an important role to play. And if he considers the evidence in as objective a way as he looks at many other things, he might be forced to admit that the pollution caused by them is minimal, that their value to the less fit and able is out of all proportion to the hazards, and government and councils would do well to make the use of them as easy and safe as possible.
I don’t want to put words into Dr Read’s mouth. He probably has different views on these things. But I have little doubt that our desire to live carefully and purposefully in a beautiful world is the same.
MPs vote to retreat and save Happisburgh
Following the publication of a new study showing that the River Thames is eroding its banks in the Westminster area, MPs voted yesterday to take no action.
There was unanimous agreement that the best solution to the problem was “managed retreat”. The Houses of Parliament are predicted to be swallowed up by the Thames within the next decade, and Downing Street by 2050.
Meanwhile in Norfolk, a village threatened with destruction will be protected by an extensive series of sea defences. “It will be worth every penny,” said a Whitehall spokesman yesterday.
“We had a meeting, and someone explained where Norfolk was.
“They also pointed out that Haisbro is spelt Happisburgh. The last time anyone looked at this, someone said Haisbro was a sandbank, and so it was all right to let the sea have it. It appears that Happisburgh is actually a village.
“We did send a minister to have a look, but he turned back for some reason.
“Obviously we couldn’t allow people’s houses and businesses to disappear, could we? It would be outrageous.”
It has also been revealed that there is a colony of great crested newts on the cliffs at Happisburgh, and this is believed to have clinched the argument, as they are a protected species, unlike humans.
“I don’t know where they came from,” said a resident. “They weren’t there last … ouch, stop kicking me.”
He added: “They’ve always been there. Ever since I can remember.”
Well, you can dream, can’t you?
Why new speed camera boss is so hard to find
I see that Norfolk police are having trouble finding a new speed camera boss – a position that pays up to £35,500 a year.
Some might say this money would be better spent filling in some of the potholes on Norfolk roads, thereby making a real instead of imaginary contribution to road safety.
No such luck. Instead the criteria for applicants have been changed: they will no longer need to have experience in criminal justice or casualty reduction.
Installing a boss who knows nothing about casualty reduction might certainly be amusing – even ironic – and probably make little operational difference.
But why are genuine road safety experts so reluctant to come forward? Perhaps because they have all realised that speed cameras do not contribute to road safety.
Maybe they have read Transport Research Laboratory report number 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency and delivered in early 2004, but for some reason never made public.
It found that speed cameras at motorway road works increased the risk of personal injury accidents by 55 per cent.
Equally disturbing, it revealed that speed cameras on open motorways increased the risk of injury crashes by nearly a third.
It also found that, while conventional police patrols reduced the risk of crashes significantly, speed cameras were associated with an increase in crash severity, with fatal and serious crashes being 32 per cent more likely where speed cameras were in operation.
Why the figures on East Anglian roads should be any different from those on motorways must be one of the first questions tackled by the new Norfolk speed camera boss – if they ever find one.
Shock for incomers to Norfolk town
A family who moved into a house at Hunstanton last week are angry about the environment they have to live in.
“It’s way out of order,” said John (Corky) McCorquodale, 36, who arrived in Norfolk from parts of London. “I was told the house had great views, but there’s all this sand. It’s like a huge sand-pit or something.
“Every time you go outside, it’s there.”
Mr McCorquodale added that he was less than happy about what he described as “widespread flooding” in an area beyond the sand. He had already seen people who had been forced to swim to escape from it.
His wife Wendy said she was concerned at the effect it might have on the children, especially after their abortive move to Scotland earlier in the year.
“It was hopeless there,” she said. “No-one had even tried to level the ground out properly. It’s as if no-one is bothered any more.”