John Prescott failed to keep the Government's transport
promises

I was appalled by Phil Goodwin’s complacent homily to John Prescott (“a bright man and a master at comprehending the key transport challenges”) (LTT 472 p.17.)

In among the cosy chit-chat of Professor Goodwin’s article there was no mention of what John Prescott promised – a reduction in motor traffic (“otherwise I will have failed”) – and what has actually happened on his 10 year watch as Transport Minister.

We had the collapse of the slight increase in fuel costs as soon as the fuel tax protesters raised their head. The costs of private motoring over the 10 years of Blair and Prescott have declined relative to the Retail Price Index: when put alongside the factors which should be considered when assessing the “real” cost of motoring, like increases in average wages, GDP or house prices, the costs for the average motorist as a proportion of income have significantly declined. No wonder we have had something like a 20% increase in registered motor vehicles and increased motor traffic.

Then there’s the loss of the commitment of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, continued road building programmes, and extension of airport capacity. We have had an increase in use of SUVs and other gas guzzlers: prototypes of fuel efficient cars have been available for decades but remain out of production because of the cheap price of fuel. We have more road freight mileage when we should be encouraging local production and consumption. The particularly low level of cycling’s modal share compared with other Northern European countries: of course, that was supposed to be quadrupled in the National Cycling Strategy – which has been dropped.

One could go on. Suffice it to say that the myriad depredations of mass car use and motor traffic are well documented, and some of the problems associated with them – public health due to lack of exercise and climate change – have received increased attention among professionals. Despite all this, the promised reduction in motor traffic has actually been an increase. Prescott said of his promise that he wanted “you to hold me to it”. Phil Goodwin doesn’t, but some of us still do.

But for those of us expecting civilised views from your columnists, all is not yet lost. Garrett Emmerson (LTT 473), 15 years after the Road Danger Reduction Forum suggested that the official measure of safety on the road – aggregated casualty numbers – is an inadequate or even contra-indicating measure, says “Road safety – are we measuring the right thing?”.

He does not consider how increased danger can lead to reduced casualties among vulnerable road user groups scared off increasingly hazardous roads, or how lower casualty numbers in a road user group can mask increased casualties per journey for such a group. Nor is there any consideration of the difference between endangering other road users and being endangered by them. Still, never mind, maybe in another 15 years…

Dr. Robert Davis
Secretary, Road Danger Reduction Forum
PO Box 2944
LONDON NW10 2AX