Safe Speed Forums

Any thoughts on how they could be more effective, or whether Britain needs a different kind of drivers' lobby group?

The aim of Safespeed has elsewhere been summed up in a few words. What would an equivalent brief statement of aims be for the ABD?

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) is a voluntary non-profit making organization funded by subscriptions and donations from ordinary members of the public. We receive no funds from the government or from any companies, and so represent the truly independent voice of the driver.

The ABD was founded in 1992 by our Chairman, Brian Gregory, and a group of fellow drivers from all walks of life and from all parts of the United Kingdom.

The objective of the ABD is to provide an active, responsible voice to lobby on behalf of Britain's beleaguered drivers upon many issues, especially those where official policy in recent years has been to discriminate against drivers by means of mis-information, obstruction, restriction, delay, or taxation.

In particular, we campaign for a return to the 'Three Es' of road safety, which gave Britain the safest roads in the world — Education, Engineering and Enforcement. We favour intelligent road policing by properly trained police traffic officers rather than blanket automated enforcement of only certain types of offence.

We want everyone to have the freedom to choose the most appropriate form of transport for each journey. We believe that increasing the usage of public transport is best achieved by enhancing the standard of provision, not by penalising car use. We seek genuine integrated transport policies which recognise that the use of private vehicles is an essential part of the transport mix.

Other issues we campaign upon include:

* Improved standards of training for all road users.
* Improvements in road and vehicle safety.
* Recognition of the fact that roads are an essential part of the UK transport system; and that traffic is the lifeblood of the economy.
* More of the taxes paid by motorists to be used to maintain and improve our road system to a safe and proper standard.
* Realistic speed limits based upon road safety requirements not political correctness nor revenue generation.
* An end to speed cameras being used inappropriately.
* Environmental policies based on science rather than politics.
* An end to the government using drivers as an inexhaustible source of stealth tax, specifically no road tolls, nor 'congestion charging'.

Criticising Labour transpoort policies does not make somebody right wing.

What about UKIP Prof?

I really do wish people would defines what is left-wing and right-wing, these terms gets thrown around all the time. Everything that is anti Government policy appears to be right-wing, everything for appears to be left-wing.

I mean, I absolutely detest Blair and his cronies but he's apparently nearly as right-wing as Maggie Thatcher. Perphaps one for the Soapbox.

I also see nothing to convince me that they are in any way anti other forms of transport.

b..Investment in road improvements/new roads with proper coach service provision is almost invariably far more cost effective than building new railways outside of major cities and is often more cost effective and efficient than maintaining existing rail routes. This should take priority where shown to be the case.

Rail works when money is spent on it to achive a reliable, modern, frequent and accessable service. Just look at the service on the Leeds/Bradford to Skipton line. Money was spent upgrading and electrifiying it and buying new stock and now it's extremely popular and well loaded all day, especially so in the peak time. This is backed up by keen pricing off-peak.

I think it is a real pity that many who are "pro-motorist" seem to be anti public transport, and equal sadly most who are pro public transport seem anti-car. I believe that a properly integrated public transport system is a desirable, if not essential, feature of an efficient and modern society, and that done properly it should improve the motorists lot rather than degrade it - and that its presence should make a positive impact on road safety. And the moment by viewing public transport and the car as "enemies" we are just compounding the half-arsed policy thinking we are getting all too used to.

But a major problem on this issue is that public transport seems to demand such enormous amounts of subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas private transport pays for itself many times over.

Being "pro public transport" has to amount to something more than simply splurging more and more subsidy over it.

But a major problem on this issue is that public transport seems to demand such enormous amounts of subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas private transport pays for itself many times over.

I think it is a real pity that many who are "pro-motorist" seem to be anti public transport, and equal sadly most who are pro public transport seem anti-car. I believe that a properly integrated public transport system is a desirable, if not essential, feature of an efficient and modern society, and that done properly it should improve the motorists lot rather than degrade it - and that its presence should make a positive impact on road safety. And the moment by viewing public transport and the car as "enemies" we are just compounding the half-arsed policy thinking we are getting all too used to