Are the Conservatives Really the "Party of the Motorist" and Why do Motorists Oppose so many Motoring Policies?

 

A quick reminder before I begin, this blog focuses on political which can be a very volatile issue so I shall be looking at the topics today from an impartial perspective.

I shall also include links to any sources I refer to, in case some accuse me of making them up.

Question 1: Is the Conservative Party, really the “party of the motorist”?

Short answer. No. they are not. Realistically, no political party is a “party of the motorist” as Labour’s idea for road pricing back in 2003/4 would have charged people for taking children to school or going to work. I sight two examples as to why the Conservatives are not the party of the motorist. Reason 1: Speed cameras were introduced under the Conservatives in 1994 and reason 2: their 2003 manifesto.

During 2003 the Conservatives said that if they came to power they would “up the motorway speed limit to 80 MPH, do away with the vast majority of speed cameras, a purge of speed bumps and abolish the M4 bus lane” (*). None of these policies have been implemented with the exception of the abolishment of the M4 bus lane meaning that any positive sounding motoring policies should at least be taken with a pinch of salt when coming from the Conservatives when based on that evidence as they were unable to keep a majority of their promises back then, so why should they now?
I know why they're doing this, as when your Prime Minister has a -45 approval rating, you need to start somewhere, but who's to say that motorists not only like their cars but also want measures like 20 MPH zones, LTN's in place? (**)

For the longest time, speed cameras were considered the bane of the motorist, as they were considered tools for earning the government money and yet only 29% of people think are too many (**). But think of it this way, should drivers who are driving at a speed considered unsafe be penalized? Chances are you’ll say yes. Though when you look at it, some consider carelessness to be the main cause of accidents and I’d agree with that. But unfortunately, you can’t literally make people safer so you have to go about it in a different way, and fundamentally unless cars are physically restricted to a given speed then you technically can’t stop people speeding. Which is where speed camera come in, 27% of fatal accidents are down to speed and so, I feel that 27% (roughly 16,400) should be penalized (***). Point is, speed cameras are set up at known speeding and accident spots (****) and so if the countries drivers were all responsible then I’d say there would be no need for them, but we are not and so there needs to be a mechanism to punish the proverbial weakest link.

Question 2: Why do motorists oppose so many motoring policies?

Reason: Motorists see the car as a sense of freedom that shouldn’t be restrained by laws.

Problem with that sentiment is that the roads shouldn’t be a metaphorical wild west. Cars and drivers should be restricted in ways to minimize accidents, fatalities, and any other problems such as issues over air pollution. This is why: leaded fuel is outlawed, seatbelts are compulsory, zebra crossings are outside schools, low-emission zones exist along with traffic lights, crash tests, speed limits etc. All of these are fundamentally for the greater good but unfortunately, they do have unforeseen consequences such as innocent (if slightly careless) drivers are prosecuted for speeding and people have to buy new cars to drive through low-emission zones. But, if the intended positives of these, such as improved air quality and less accidents come through then, surely the positives outweigh the negatives?

Let’s use the ULEZ as an example, people are suffering due to air pollution in London, especially those with asthma(*****), whence why Boris Johnson penned the idea and then Sadiq Khan implemented it. I understand why people oppose it, as having a sudden expense imposed on you to avoid a fine isn’t pleasant especially if you run a business or have a family but peoples accounts show that the ULEZ is having a positive impact on people and that’s what matters (******). Though personally I feel the 10% who's cars aren't compliant shouldn't be charged as much as I feel this policy has come at a bad time, so say £2 for a family of 4 in a diesel Focus and £10 for a someone in say an old Range Rover, a more nuanced version would like be more popular in my view.

Let’s take the new 20 MPH limits introduced in Wales as another example. What are the positives? Theoretically, slower drivers mean less injuries and less deaths (*******) with only a minor increase to journey time. Negatives? That aforementioned journey time and the inconvenience of it being too slow for 3^rd and too quick for 2^nd which will cause increased fuel consumption, and this won’t improve traffic flow (though increasing won’t have much effect if the town is congested- you can only go as fast as the car in front in a town). Personally, I think this isn’t a major change, it only effects towns, the police are being lenient for now and if it produces results then that’s what matters in the end.

I understand why people oppose things like speed cameras and ULEZ but at one point people opposed compulsory seatbelts so the question is, if these policies produce the desired results will the opposition be on the right side of history, or not?

* Top Gear Series 2 Episode 9

** Top Gear Magazine "It's perfectly okay to like 20 MPH zones *and* cars"

*** RoSPA

**** Compare the Market
***** Top Gear Series 7 Episode 3

****** The Guardian “Bogus war on the motorist is sign of Tory Desperation”

******* The Independent “The real people behind the toxic ULEZ row”
******** gov. wales