“Is the ABD prepared to engage in a constructive transport dialogue?”

I respond to the comment about my and the RDRF’s views made by the Association of British drivers (Letters LTT 11 January).

The task is rather difficult. Discussing their politics, as displayed on their website, involves entering a paranoid (“they’re out to get you!”) world that is difficult to recognise, although turning it upside down gives something of a resemblance to the real world the rest of us live in. But here goes.

“The ABD has never opposed anything that is remotely recognisable as a sustainable transport policy”. A large chunk of the ABD website is devoted to “debunking” the idea of man-made climate change; opposing the point that cars have noxious emissions (“Official figures show that there is NO air quality case against the car!”);and rubbishing the idea of health benefits to be obtained from changing to walking and cycling from car use.

There is no mention of any serious attempt to support a society with fewer cars or motor vehicle use and a reduction in “car dependence”. There are two mentions I found of “better facilities for cyclists”: these refer to removing cycle and pedestrian traffic from the vicinity of “the traffic”. These “facilities” will be on bigger roads with faster moving motor traffic , presumably onto fantasy spaces vaulting over junctions and replacing buildings.

“If people like Mr. Davis really believe that greater regulation is the way to reduce danger on the roads, why don’t they campaign for greater regulation of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as driver…?”. In letters to LTT and elsewhere, and on www.rdrf.org , we have argued for accountability and control of those responsible for danger on the road, whether highway authorities, central government, motor manufacturers or motorists. We stress the fundamental difference between those transport modes with significant potential to endanger others and those that are far less likely to. Unless that concept is accepted it really is rather difficult to have any sensible discussion about appropriate highway and vehicle engineering or law enforcement.

One could go on but since the ABD appears not to have read the road danger reduction agenda there is little point. The real problem I have tried to draw attention to is the way the ABD agenda is close to that of the main motoring organisations, the ‘road safety’ industry and the Government.

Robert Davis
Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum
P.O. Box 2944,
LONDON NW10 2AX