Longrider

I’ve read a fair bit of Sean Gabb’s work and usually find myself nodding in agreement. His post mortem of his appearance on 18 Doughty Street makes fascinating reading.

I knew this would be bad television from the moment the cameras were switched on. I found myself trapped on a couch with some loud woman from the BBC, with a toad in a suit who was something in the Greater London Conservative Policy, and with a Labour apparatchik who had cycled up from Rotherhithe. I never caught their names, and do not feel inclined to look them up on the Doughty Street website. These struck up a detailed and generally approving examination of the new Cabinet Ministers appointed by Gordon Brown. With growing disquiet, I sat listening to the flow of knowing, self-referential chatter. The other guests seemed to be competing on who could claim to know more of the new Ministers and who could pass the most flattering comments on their ability.

I haven’t seen the programme myself, but there’s a familiarness about that scene. The talking heads set-up. Like Orwell’s pigs and humans in Animal Farm, it can be difficult to tell them apart sometimes.

Gabb then sets to work with a stiletto…

Suddenly, Iain Dale turned to me and asked if I thought the Conservatives might have trouble finding people of sufficient quality to shadow the new Ministers.

Yes, I answered wearily, the Conservatives would have trouble matching the quality of these new Ministers—but only because they were themselves even more useless and morally corrupt than Labour. I added that a better government than the new one could easily be formed by choosing two dozen people at random from the catering staff at the Palace of Westminster.

Ouch! But, he is probably right. Those random two dozen people likely as not have more common sense than the whole of the elected assembly. They, at least, experience the real world rather than the heady self-congratulatory, rarefied atmosphere of the political debating chamber.

That started a flood of denunciation. The Loud Woman asked grandly who I thought I was to speak so slightingly of our masters.

Our masters?!?! For fuck’s sake, who is this woman? Oh, yeah, that’s right, she’s from the BBC, so in her case that’s probably an accurate comment. As for the rest of us, these self-serving jackanapes are our servants not our masters. Gabb’s reply was spot on:

I answered that every politician I had ever met was human trash—the better ones were in the game for the money and sex; the rest were plodding control freaks.

So there you have it; politicians in a nutshell; money, sex and control freakery. All too frequently the truism in that comment is exposed by the bastards behaving precisely as Gabb describes them.

Now, I have been accused, because of my recent postings, of political nihilism. My accusers have a point. But what is wrong with nihilism?

Good question. Not least because I find myself in much the same position. I despise all of them with a vengeance. They lie and they deceive, and they lack the moral authority to lead. It doesn’t matter what colour the rosette, the stench of corruption and self-interest is identical. So, why should I support any of them?

Suppose you are taken into a restaurant, where everything offered is some preparation of stinking fish. Do you placidly go ahead with your order? Or do you throw the menu aside and comment on the smell?

I comment on the smell.

And suppose the other guests—who all seem to have a connection with the management—strike up a debate on the merits of poached as against grilled stinking fish. Do you join in? Or do you head for the door?

I head for the door. And to those who say “but you should try to change things from within,” I say, “dream on”.

And—to complete the analogy—suppose you find yourself chained to the table with a feeding tube shoved down your throat. Is it reasonable to do other than wish for the waiters and the unseen kitchen staff to be taken out and shot?

Indeed, though I would wish for something more painful and humiliating than merely shooting. Sharp pointy things in unmentionable places would be my preference.

That describes the politics of this country at the moment. And if saying so is nihilism, I am a nihilist.

So, too am I, then.

Update:  Having caught up with the programme, I suggest that Sean Gabb sticks to writing rather than speaking. He had good things to say, but they didn’t come across too well.

The workplace where I am currently contracting plans to take part in the Wrong Trousers Day on Friday 29^th June this year. There’s nothing wrong with that you might conclude and mostly, I would go along with you. However, I do have this underlying disquiet about any form of charity event in the workplace. People feel obliged to give as they are subject to peer pressure. That they might give to charities of their own choosing outside the workplace is something not seen and so does not count – sponsoring a colleague’s cycle ride for Africa or some other worthy cause is expected even if they would rather poke out both eyes with a burnt stick than give money that will end up in some kleptocratic dictator’s Swiss bank account.

People might have moral, religious or even non-religious objections to the chosen charity. Actually, you wouldn’t have to explain your reasons to me anyway – that you don’t wish to support a particular charity is fine by me; it’s your business, not mine. And, frankly, charity being a personal thing, it should be nothing to do with the employer either. If the business wishes to donate some of its profit to a chosen charity, then fine. Again, I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a moral objection to giving to certain charities and will resist any attempts to make me give.

Despite the jolly posters announcing the event, there is a dark side to Friday’s fun and games. Employees are being asked to donate £1 for the pleasure of coming into work in the “wrong” trousers. Okay, fine, if people want to, I wouldn’t stop them. I won’t take part myself, partly because I find the whole thing a bit silly and because the employer’s chosen charity is not one I would choose to support. Ah, but, it ain’t that easy. In order to “encourage” everyone to take part, people who wear the “wrong” wrong trousers (i.e. wear normal clothing) will be hit for £2.

If this wasn’t a charity, people would be using words like “blackmail” and “extortion” to describe this behaviour – but “it’s for charidee, mate” seems to excuse any unethical behaviour these days. I don’t like unethical behaviour and I don’t like people demanding that I give them money. When Bob Geldof demanded that we “…give us the fucking money…” he made damn sure that I would never give him any of mine and I never have.

So, on Friday, I’ll be the tight git refusing to pay up and no one will understand my objection even if I take the time to try and explain…

Note: The Wrong Trousers Foundation has nothing to do with the coercion that is going on in the workplace. They simply ask that people take part and pay to do so.

In an interesting article in today’s Telegraph Paul Smith from SafeSpeed discusses speed cameras (euphemistically referred to as “safety” cameras) and why they don’t seem to be saving lives as their proponents claim.

British road safety is in trouble. The number of road deaths isn’t falling as expected and recent figures from Europe put our rate of road safety improvement behind 20 other European nations. We used to have the safest roads in the world but we have been overtaken.

Although it appears that Department for Transport (DfT) targets are being met, it’s only the trend in serious injuries that provides this positive result. Unfortunately for the DfT, and for the rest of us, the numbers being hospitalised following road crashes haven’t fallen for a decade. The only reasonable conclusion is that serious injuries are not falling either, but DfT statistics suffer an increasing degree of under-reporting.

When asked to investigate why road deaths were not falling as expected, the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) deduced that “some drivers must be getting worse”.

That last paragraph tends to be the nub of the argument. I have mentioned before that there is more to road safety than reducing the speed at which people travel. Yes, indeed, the physical laws relating to moving objects do support the assertion that reducing speed will reduce the consequence of collisions and in some cases may mean that the collision does not happen. But… But… driving – and roadcraft – is a much more complex matter than merely the laws of moving objects. It is all about hazard recognition and management of risk in a dynamic environment and it is this aspect that Smith concentrates upon:

I have spent the last six years looking at road safety as a system and I’m pretty sure I know what’s going wrong. Modern traffic policies are making drivers worse. This has been allowed to happen because the DfT has no working definition of what it means to be a good driver or even a proper understanding of what drivers really do. Yet driver behaviour, specifically the quality of driver behaviour, is the hidden fundamental on which all road safety depends. Unfortunately, the DfT has been taking driver quality for granted or possibly ignoring it altogether, an issue that Sir John Whitmore addressed in his most recent Telegraph Motoring column (June 2).

The process of driving is one of real-time risk management. Drivers who manage risk well stay out of trouble. They recognise risky situations and wait, hang back or steer clear.

Indeed, that is what I used to teach learner drivers; weigh up the situation and drop back rather than get involved. One instructor I used to know referred to the tendency to rush in as SIDS – self induced distress syndrome – and he had a point. Dropping back and letting the situation sort itself out without becoming involved adds little if any time to the overall journey and can make the difference between finishing at the desired destination or in the morgue. It also makes the difference between a relaxed journey and one fraught with stress. So, to those who campaign for lower speeds and for ever more cameras to enforce those lower limits; yes, lower speed applied at the right time is a solution. However, it is the driver who is aware of the risks and evaluates them effectively who makes the best use of that approach. A bad driver remains a bad driver at whatever speed he is travelling and will be unable to effectively regulate speed according to risk. That is  point that Smith is making here:

It’s not so much what we see that matters, but what we do with what we see. We use it to manage risk.

However:

Sadly, most people haven’t been taught to drive as risk managers. We are taught manual skills (steering, clutch control, gear changing) and rules (go this way or that, stop here, don’t stop here, don’t speed, don’t drink and drive).

I dispute this. When teaching people to drive motor cars and ride motorcycles, effective risk management was a part of the package that I delivered. We didn’t necessary call it that; terms such as “the system” and “roadcraft” or “effective observation” were used – but it amounts to the same thing; evaluate the risk and manage one’s approach to it; right gear, right speed, right road position and informing other road users of one’s intentions. I have never met a driving or riding instructor who does not take this approach. Learners are taught risk management. The problem is that their initial learning is a fairly condensed period at the beginning of their driving career and once on their own, there is a temptation to forget. There is no subsequent encouragement for drivers to improve or develop their skills – how many people are aware of the passplus scheme and how large a proportion of new drivers take it up? Combine this lack of continuous development with inane “speed kills” propaganda and is it any wonder driving is being dumbed down?

In particular, we learn to adjust our speed in order to remain safe in the prevailing road, weather and traffic conditions. The speed at which you choose to drive is an output from your own internal risk management system. Yet the DfT regards speed as an “input”.

This echoes what I have just said – the driver regulates speed according to the situation. The constant barrage of speed limits (many of which appear to have little to do with prevailing risk) is clearly not helping. Nor for that matter do increasingly stupid “traffic management” schemes, traffic lights on roundabouts, a plethroa of road signs and traffic calming measures.

Not only do they neglect driver quality, but they are actively making us worse. We are prioritising and concentrating on the wrong things. At the heart of our policies are speed cameras, which have largely replaced comprehensive traffic policing. The dream is that cameras reduce risk, but the reality is that they are reducing the quality of our risk management.

Smith has a point here, but there is another aspect to consider. If we accept that speed limits are appropriate – and I do accept this, I merely question the risk assessment that took place with many of them – then enforcement is a reasonable consequence. Again, I have no beef with enforcement. I have always argued that a traffic police officer will make an overall judgement based upon the conditions. In other words, the traffic cop is making the same evaluation of risk as the speeding driver. This may make the difference between a prosecution and a caution. Generally, I would prefer this approach. However, there is a dark side. I was recently reading about people’s experience with this in Motorcycle Rider (a publication to which I occasionally contribute). On these occasions, the police issued prosecution notices when the rider either was not speeding or was well under the speed claimed by the police. On one such occasion, the magistrates dismissed the case because the police officer was proved to have lied. Whatever their faults, a camera will not lie about the speed (at least, I’ve not come across any that have). And, frankly, if you get caught by one, given that they are clearly visible, I might just start asking questions about your observation and hazard recognition skills.

Cameras give us legal compliance targets, not safety targets.

That rather sums up the two-dimensional thinking of this government. They have taken the same trite mentality to health and education with the same piss-poor results.

The only possible route forward is for the DfT to admit its fatal mistake and pull the plug on the failed speed camera programme. This would certainly be a dramatic step, but it is an essential one, as a mere change of emphasis would leave the false dogma intact.

Time to get those pigs fed and out of the hanger, methinks. Much as I agree with Smith’s rationale – as it is one I share – given that the speed camera mentality is burgeoning across continental Europe as well as here, I’m afraid that they are here to stay. Petitions such as the one he is publicising don’t work. When was the last time politicians changed policy on the back of a petition? And given that the anti-car mob currently have the ear of the current administration as do the rest of the enviroloon lobby, the likelihood of SafeSpeed getting speed cameras scrapped is as likely as me getting those pigs scrambled…

Nice idea, though.

The old driving test fraud is a regular news item. I suppose, therefore, that another such story hitting the BBC News comes as no great surprise.

Tens of thousands of people are paying fraudsters to sit their driving test for them, the BBC has learned.

Tens of thousands? That level of fraud seems to me incredible. The DSA claims that they have been investigating and are planning arrests, but systematic fraud to that level so far undetected (in which case how do they know?) seems just a little like hyperbole to me. The radio bulletin talked of tens of thousands of unlicensed drivers out on the roads. If the DSA has the evidence, then presumably  they are taking action against both the fraudsters who take the tests and the drivers who are paying for the scam. Neither has been expanded upon, so given that evidence is somewhat sparse, I’m a little sceptical about the numbers quoted.

Now, I’ve a nasty suspicious mind and on hearing about this on the radio this morning, I wondered how long it would take for the story to get linked to identity management. About halfway through the day as it turned out. By the end of the day, the same bulletin was talking of biometric verification of candidates, including fingerprints and iris scans.

So given that we have photo licences, how is the fraud working?

The scam works when the fraudsters pass themselves off as the person in the photo on the provisional licence that candidates must bring to their test.

Okay, so I realise that examiners are busy people, but here is the first little clue as to why any form of identity card is weak. If an examiner cannot tell – or is too rushed to have the time to check properly – that the person presenting the licence is not the same as the person in the photograph, then basic human instinct for a “wrong ’un” is already undermined. People have a natural tendency to trust official documentation – even those that you would expect to know better. But before you criticise the examiners, just remember how many of these things they are looking at on a daily basis. That is why identity cards don’t work.

The head of the DSA’s fraud team, Andy Rice, said: “It is quite common for them to do over 100, sometimes over 200 tests, before we’re in a position to arrest them. We’re into the tens of thousands.”

You would think that the DSA would pick up on this rather more quickly – given that the fraudsters can be incredibly stupid, such as this gentleman from a couple of years back:

Sorhaindo paid £5,995 to the Driving Standards Agency with his own credit card before his activities were finally uncovered by a suspicious driving examiner.

Sorhaindo was caught because an examiner became suspicious – not because the DSA’s system picked up the little matter of the same credit card being used to pay for multiple tests.

This is a government agency. By government agency standards, it is probably one of the better ones. Now, just ask yourself – before some bright spark suggests that ID cards would solve this problem – how well do you think an ID card would be at picking this up? Clue: We already have the evidence before us.