Category - Transport

Tram Fiasco Just Gets Worse and Worse

07/08/2015

I’ve written many times about Nottingham’s tram system, and in particular how it is a monumental waste of money and a showcase for the incompetence of those involved with it. I read somewhere that every minute beyond the planned completion date was costing an additional £100. That puts the bloody thing up to £35 million over budget depending on how you calculate it. Nottingham - City of Road Works

Work started in January 2012 and they immediately imposed major, long-term road closures and restrictions. Completion was scheduled for the end of 2014 – at which time every single one of the original road closures and/or restrictions were still in place, most of them at serious traffic bottlenecks. Half a brain or even a trace of conscience would have prompted those responsible to have dealt with the bottlenecks first, but these people are far from being normal. As a result they left the restrictions in place for so long that it could only have been deliberate – punitive actions by petty minded morons who only have eyes for their darling tram system.

As I write this (in the first week of August 2015) there are precious few signs that we’re anywhere near having a functioning service.

Oh, yes. We’ve had “important milestones”. The latest one concerned the opening of the first stop on the new line. The fact that it’s only metres away from an existing stop (which has been taken out of service) seems to escape the sycophants at the BBC, as does the fact it is only a “stop”, and not a “station” as reported. Irrespective of this “milestone”, the project is at least 8 months behind schedule, and nothing can ever erase that simple fact, or the sheer incompetence which has led to it.

Another “milestone” was the commencement of trams running on the line for test purposes. The outcome of this was that further major road closures took place as they dug up sections of the line because it hadn’t been laid properly. The BBC wasn’t so keen to report on that little detail – but I’ve seen it at numerous locations in Clifton during the last month or so. All you have to do is drive along the line and look for the particoloured tarmac to see the tell tale signs.

A perfect illustration of the incompetence of those who are building the new line can be seen in another current story. There is controversy over the installation of a tram stop sign in Chilwell (note the spelling), which the clowns have gone and spelt as “Chillwell”. To understand the significance of this, you have to look at the planning which went into the work in Beeston and Chilwell. Beeston High Road was originally scheduled to be shut for 12 months, and it’s hard to imagine the arrogance and stupidity required for such a long planned closure of a busy shopping area in the first place. It’s even harder when you consider that the actual closure lasted 19 months. And yet it was still trumpeted as a “milestone” when it eventually re-opened. Shop keepers went out of business, and others still might. So you can guess how people felt when they saw that new sign.

The High Road may well be open again, but people simply haven’t gone back. If you drive along there – as I often do on lessons – it’s like a ghost town, even at peak times during the day. It used to be a hive of activity, but now it is virtually dead.

If you should still doubt the stupidity of Nottingham City (or County) Council, another recent story might make you think again. Two roads in Beeston, just off the High Road, have been made tram-only routes. It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to learn that the council installed enforcement cameras, and these recently went live. In the first week they collected £19,500 in fines.

The county [it gets confusing – you can’t figure whether it is the City or the County, or both] council said it wanted to avoid the area becoming a rat run but some residents thought drivers were trying to avoid tram-related roadworks.

This comment makes my blood boil:

Peter Goode, traffic manager at the county council, said: “This is well signposted – both at the road and on the main access routes.

Trust me. It isn’t. I’ve been down there once – by accident – with a pupil before the cameras went live. The layout of the road, and how it appears from a distance as you approach it means that mistakes by drivers are pretty much guaranteed.

Another “milestone” a few months ago was when road closures and restrictions in Clifton on Southchurch Drive and Farnborough Road were lifted after the full two and a half years. The publicity given by local media (BBC, Clifton Local News, etc.) completely hid the fact that within a week the same restrictions were back up in all the same places and more besides because they were having to dig the line up and fix it. Even now, in early August, there are various light-controlled chicanes and closures throughout Clifton.

Pre-tram, if you travelled the whole length of Southchurch Drive there used to be four (possibly five) zebra crossings. Now, there are seven sets of lights. Three roundabouts were replaced with light-controlled crossroads (which are also pedestrian controlled crossings). As you’d expect with Nottingham City Council, these crossings are heavily biased in favour of pedestrians, and each of the four apparently separate crossings on each branch of the Southchurch Drive/Green Lane junction will stop traffic within seconds of a pedestrian pushing the button. And this is before you factor in the priority that will be afforded to the trams once they start running.

Elsewhere, I’ve been driving along Abbey Street in Lenton a lot this last week. I’m not exaggerating when I say that every single time I have reached the junction with Gregory Street the lights have been on red and a tram has gone past. If they are testing the trams at anything like the frequency they’re going to be operating at, rush hour is going to be a nightmare once the schools are back this autumn.

20mph Signs Erected by Halfwits

01/05/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Transport

I recently mentioned the idiotic 20mph speed limits which Nottingham City Council – and championed by Jane Urquhart – has erected within the City boundaries. I pointed out specifically that the signage is now extremely confusing – and in many cases, totally wrong and probably illegal. Well, take a look at these two examples.

This first one is on Hungerhill Road, at the junction with Abbotsford Drive. Note how there is a 20mph repeater sign, a 30mph main sign, then another 20mph repeater further down the road. The 30mph sign is the original signage and the 20mph zone has been extended farther down the road. It’s also worth pointing out that at the end of Abbotsford Drive (where the parked car is), there is another 30mph sign – and yet there are 20mph repeaters both left and right as you emerge.

The second one is on Beacon Hill Rise in St Anns. You can see how the previous 20mph zone ended just here – and yet there is another 20mph repeater just after the mini-roundabout (again, they have extended the 20mph zone).

These are just two out of many I have seen. At best, speed limit signs are now frequently the wrong size – you’re supposed to have a large one at the start (or end) of a zone, and the small repeaters in between. However, now the large ones exist within 20mph zones, and that makes them confusing.

At worst, the halfwits at the council have simply left all the old signs up, even when they have contradictory speed limits marked on them.

None of this is legal, and enforcing it if anyone is caught speeding is going to be a huge waste of money because they’ll more than likely be able to wriggle out of it in court.

These signs have been like this for at least two months, now. It proves beyond doubt that the council wouldn’t understand road safety if it bit them on the ass. However, I’m sure that quite a few people who work there will have received glowing annual appraisals just based on the number of times they said “road safety” in their team meetings. It simply goes to show what happens when you promote mediocre people to positions of responsibility.

I’ve always been a Labour voter (I wouldn’t vote for anyone else). But I’m seriously thinking about not voting at all this time around. That’s because a vote for Labour is effectively a vote for Jane Urquhart, and she is simply not up to the job.

Do Nottingham police enforce 20mph limits?

It is my understanding that they don’t – not yet, at any rate. I’m sure I read some time last year that they had refused to do so because they didn’t have the manpower.

However, you must remember that if you break the 20mph speed limit then you ARE committing an offence and if they did decide to enforce these limits at any point in time you wouldn’t have any defence (as long as the signage was legal, of course).

They could start enforcing these limits at any time – for all we know they could have started now.

Is the 20mph signage legal?

The short answer is that in many areas it is absolutely NOT legal. As I outlined above, many areas still have 30mph signs plonked right in the middle of 20mph zones. In other areas the signs are the wrong size, and this gives the clear impression that you are moving from a higher speed limit zone to a 20mph one, when in fact the idiots have dropped the limit in the former zone already – quite possibly using further illegal or misleading signage.

Would I have an avenue of appeal if I were ticketed?

I would say that you would – certainly if the signage was incorrect in the ways I have already outlined. Furthermore, the constant changing from 20mph to 30, then back again is confusing enough (even with correct signage) to form the basis of some sort of appeal, though how successful you would be with that is anyone’s guess.

Remember that I am not a lawyer and I am not offering legal advice. I am simply stating the obvious based on Nottingham City Council’s total incompetence over this matter.

20mph is too slow on 90% of the roads where it has been introduced.

Gedling Country Park

07/04/2015

DOAADI

ADI, Roadworks, Transport

One of the routes I often take my pupils on is along Spring Lane (from Mapperley) down to Lowdham, then back through Burton Joyce or off to the A46 (or the opposite way, depending on where they live). It passes the site of the old Gedling Colliery, which closed in 1991, and which has been used for some time as a dogs’ toilet by local people.

The route is important, since it is one of the few remaining roads where the idiot council hasn’t cut the national speed limit to 20mph, although it has reduced part of the road from NSL to 40mph. It enables learners to be taught how to handle the type of road where statistics tell us they are likely to have most of their accidents without having to travel 20 miles out of the council’s jurisdiction. But I am worried that might soon change.

Council stupidity goes far beyond introducing 20mph speed limits on roads which should be 30mph or more. In this example, it concerns their conversion of the old colliery site into a “country park”.

I don’t know about you, but to me a country walk means dirt tracks, old trees, brambles, and mud if it’s raining. And it means not many other people around. To the council, it means digging all that up and installing Tarmac (or some other artificial surface) footpaths and a nice big car park for people to drop litter in. It also means extra lighting and footpaths outside for “accessibility”. And this is exactly what they have been up to for the last six months, with all the associated road closures and restrictions.

When I was young, people could lay several miles of new paved footpath in a week. As I say, it has taken them close to six months to lay 25 metres of Tarmac along part of Spring Lane, and temporary lights have been up all that time. Of course, this was carried out slap in in the middle of the tram works (which have overrun by about a year so far), the Ring Road improvements (which have created more traffic jams), and the grossly overrunning “Creative Quarter” road works on Manvers Street (where two lanes of city centre traffic now – and forever – will have to make do with just one, and where pedestrian crossings have been placed on blind bends for use by the kind of people for whom it is borderline that they should be allowed out unsupervised in the first place).

The “country park” also has a 34-acre expanse of solar panels at its heart (this was opposed by virtually everyone, but approved by Gedling Borough Council anyway – and it was built quicker than you could say “no, hold on a minute…”). The park narrowly escaped having a waste recycling plant built on it.

I won’t go on about the detrimental effect all this is likely to have on the diversity of species on the park, because for reasons best known to him, Terry Lock (the chairman of some group known as “Friends of Gedling Country Park”) who once saw a badger reckons it will increase diversity. So who am I to argue over such absolute scientific fact?

No. My point is that when I went past the place with a pupil last week, we rounded a corner to be met by rows of cars parked on either side of the road for about a quarter of a mile, creating a corridor that wasn’t wide enough for two vehicles to pass at the same time. I assumed it was some sort of opening ceremony, but given that Spring Lane is a narrow country lane (as this old Google Earth image shows) I thought how irresponsible it was of Gedling Borough Council to have allowed such dangerous parking.

However, when I went past on another lesson over the weekend we encountered the same thing, but with the additional problem of people blocking the road trying to get into the car park which was obviously full, otherwise those hundreds of other cars wouldn’t have been lined up outside. I noticed dozens of people out on an Easter “country walk” with their prams and designer wellies, wandering along the artificial paths that had been installed. The indiscriminate parking creates a long and continuous corridor with several bends, so you cannot see if anyone is coming the other way. It also means people are parking on grass verges outside residents’ homes and screwing up the grass borders.

So well done Gedling Borough Council for creating an absolute disaster-in-waiting. Someone will get killed and it’s all thanks you your bloody stupid ideas of what constitutes a “country park”, and your desire to attract the kind of morons who don’t give a f*** where they park as long as they get what they want.

Hazard Perception Test Wins Safety Award

15/10/2014

DOAADI

ADI, DVSA, News, Training, Transport

This article was written in June, and the “vipers’ comments” I referred to relate to those I read on various forums at that time. However, I notice the subject has cropped up again recently.

This came in via the DVSA email alerts, and it reports that the Hazard Perception Test (HPT) has won the John Smart Road Safety award at this years’ Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) awards. As you can imagine, this has caused a few of the usual vipers out there to burst out of their holes and start flinging their favoured lines around.

The award was primarily for the study and the effort that went into it – not for the simple process of sitting in front of a computer screen for 90 minutes in order to complete the Theory Test.

For anyone who is interested, a “cohort study” is a complex analytical method used in situations where things aren’t just black or white. For example, the human body is extremely complex, and so are most drugs, and a particular drug might not affect everyone in the same way, or it might have unwanted side effects which only show up in some people. It isn’t simply a case of being able to say “well, he took the drug and it didn’t affect him, therefore the problem isn’t with the drug”. A cohort study can help pin down the cause by looking at groups of people and data which apply to them. Unfortunately, such studies involve statistics, and most ADIs are self-proclaimed anti-experts on this subject – often summed up on web forums when someone posts their favourite mantra that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

And they wonder why no one – including the DVSA – wants to listen to them!

Learning to drive – and driving safely thereafter – is also a hugely complex issue. It simply cannot be broken down into something as simple as what, for example, happens when you mix two different colours of paint! For that reason, two cohort studies have been carried out – Cohort I covered the period 1988-1998, and Cohort II covered the period 1998-2007. The second study straddled the introduction of the HPT in 2002.

You can read the full findings for yourselves, but key points were:

The average amount [of lessons with an ADI] was 52 hours, but half of the candidates had less than 40 hours of professional instruction. In Cohort I, the average was 31 hours.
The total driving experience for [test] passers averaged 67 hours [in Cohort II), compared with 49 hours in Cohort I.
In the first six months after the practical test, nearly two in ten respondents (19%) reported having an accident and seven in ten respondents (70%) reported having a near accident. As new drivers gained experience, the number of accidents they reported decreased and the severity of accidents increased.
The introduction of the hazard perception test was associated with some reduction in subsequent accident liability in the first year of driving, depending on the type of accident. For reported nonlow-speed accidents on a public road where the driver accepted some blame, the accident liability of those who had taken the hazard perception test was significantly lower than those who had not.
The higher the score achieved in the hazard perception test, the lower the accident liability for some types of accidents in the first year of driving.

If you read the bulk of the report, it is explained that following the introduction of HPT, more time was spent by candidates studying for the Theory Test (TT), and there was an increased use of visual materials. This detail alone is completely overlooked by the aforementioned naysayers, and yet it clearly implies that the HPT has made candidates think more about what they are doing. The report then adds:

Multivariate analysis showed that the introduction of the hazard perception test was associated with a reduction in subsequent accident liability for some types of accident in the first year of driving. The size of the effect varies with the type of accident.

The naysayers will be totally lost with this statement, but what it is saying is that there was a distinct statistical reduction in some types of accident following introduction of the HPT. It goes on to explain:

For reported non-low-speed accidents on a public road where the driver accepted some blame, accident liability for the first year of
those who had taken the hazard perception test was significantly lower than that of those who had not. There is also a predictive relation between the hazard perception score and levels of reported accidents in the first year, suggesting that there is scope for reducing accidents by improving hazard perception skills.

When something is “significantly” lower you cannot simply discount it just because you don’t understand it, or because you have some existing prejudice to defend. In conclusion, the report states:

Cohort II also provides the first persuasive evidence of a safety benefit associated with the introduction of hazard perception testing in the driver testing regime. The results suggest that the better people are at identifying hazards in the test, the better they are at avoiding accidents in future.

With that, it is simply stating fact – the evidence is right there – yet it doesn’t make any direct claims because, as already mentioned, the topic is far too complex for that.

I have said before that even in the worst possible case, the HPT would have had a neutral effect, However, it is hard to imagine that it would have had no effect at all – the fact that prior to it, there was nothing except what a pupil learned on lessons, whereas now there is the lessons AND the HPT. Certainly the HPT will not have had a negative effect, or increased accident rates, although I remember some idiot trying to claim this a couple of years ago.

I don’t believe for a second that every positive thing is down to the introduction of HPT. Every pupil is different, and pupils as a whole in 2014 are different to those in 1998, and those in turn were different to those from 1988. However, you’d have to be a completely biased moron to try and dismiss the results as providing no support whatsoever for HPT.

HPT is better than nothing. And the results from Cohort II clearly support this.

Direct Debit And Abolition Of Tax Disc

07/10/2014

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, News, Transport

This article was originally published in December 2013, and the changes are now in effect. Please look at the update at the bottom of the article for information on how to pay by direct debit.

From 1 October 2014, tax discs will no longer be issued or be required to be displayed on vehicles. Also from that date, it will be possible to pay your road tax annually, every six months, or monthly by direct debit.

There is more information available here. It’s also been covered in much of today’s media. The changes do not negatively impact motorists in any way – the surcharge for paying six-monthly or monthly, for example, will actually be half of what it currently is when you pay six-monthly.

The tax disc first appeared in 1921. According to the article, over 99% of motorists pay their road tax on time.

The only question I would have is what happens if someone’s monthly direct debit is refused? Are they then untaxed? Since enforcement is by ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Readers/Recognition) systems there could be a rise in the numbers of those being stopped for having no tax – yet they might not be aware that they aren’t taxed.

NOTE: As a reader has pointed out, the term “road tax” is technically a misnomer, and the correct term is “vehicle tax” or “vehicle excise duty”. However, I should point out myself that the term “road tax” is almost universal, even to the point of being in the OED. You can read more about the debate surrounding the term on Wikipedia.

A lot of people are finding the blog on search terms associated with “how do I pay by direct debit?” The short answer is that I don’t know – not in detail, anyway. My own tax is paid automatically by my lease agent, so I don’t have to sort it out myself.

However, my understanding is that if you go to a Post Office to renew your tax, you can sign up for direct debit there any time after 5 October 2014. From 1 November 2014 you will also have that option if you renew online. You will be able to pay annually, biannually (every six months), or monthly. More information is given on the GOV.UK website here.

There is currently a beta version of the online renewal system. You can try it out here.

Vauxhall Corsa Urgent Recall 2014

07/10/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DVSA, News, Transport

This article was first published in September 2014 when the recall first appeared in the media, and before DVSA had responded. Note the two updates at the bottom of this article. The recall date has now been extended back to February 2014.

No word from the DVSA yet (see addendum below), but Vauxhall has said that any Corsa or Adam registered since May 2014 should not be driven until it has been inspected and repaired if necessary.

Apparently, a component in the steering system “falls below Vauxhall’s quality standards”. You can interpret that any way you want, but what it really means is that a faulty part has been used. From tomorrow (Saturday, 27 September 2014) – and they probably mean sometime during the day, and not at 1 minute after midnight – you will be able to check to see if your vehicle is one of those affected by going to Vauxhall’s website and clicking the relevant link. In the meantime, their advice is not to drive it.

It is likely that DVSA will refuse to conduct driving tests in affected vehicles without proof of inspection and/or appropriate remedial work. Any ADI conducting lessons needs to be aware of the interim warning not to drive the car.

DVSA has issued the anticipated response to the recall notice as of Monday 29 September 2014, which can be read here. In a nutshell, they say:

If your vehicle is affected, you won’t be able to take it on test without written proof that the vehicle has been checked by the manufacturer and remedial work carried out if needed.

DVSA examiners will accept documents from the vehicle manufacturer or the manufacturer’s appointed representative or dealership.

They also point out that any tests taking place within the next 5 working days can be cancelled and rearranged free of charge. Outside of that, normal rules apply.

There is an update from the DVSA here (which was updated a few hours later to clarify the cut-off point for cancellations). The original notice mentioned above referred to cars registered from May 2014. This appears to have been extended backwards to February 2014. So Corsas and Adams registered from February this year – not just from May. The source information can be seen here.

DVSA is still offering a grace period if you need to cancel and rearrange.

HGV Maximum Speed Limit Increase Consultation

30/07/2014

DOAADI

General, News, Transport

I’ve noticed a few sources in the last few days rattling on about how the maximum speed limit for HGVs is to be increased. Sources (some of which are forums) seem to have some of the details wrapped around their necks.

A previous consultation has recommended that the speed for HGVs on single-carriageways be increased from 40mph to 50mph. This will go before Parliament during the summer, as it will require changes to the Law. Personally, I am not convinced it is a good idea, and the best argument Baroness Kramer seems to be able to come up with is:

The current speed limit just does not work – it is broken by about three quarters of HGV drivers at any particular time when they are not constrained by other traffic or the road layout. It is implausible that it could readily be made to work without a disproportionate effort.

I wonder if she thinks they’ll stick to 50mph any better than they do 40mph? And I wonder if she has seriously considered – or is capable of understanding – the additional risks associated with drivers attempting to control a vehicle weighing up to nearly 40 tonnes on narrow, twisting roads, or the effects of an accident involving one which is therefore moving 25% or more faster than it would have been legally (or illegally) moving previously? I hardly think that criminal behaviour should be decriminalised just because it means you don’t have to police it.

I mean, the council round my way is cutting limits to 20mph all over the place. But hardly anyone does 20mph (I do – I have to), so shouldn’t these limits be increased, too?

Anyway, if all that wasn’t bad enough, they’re now consulting on whether to increase the HGV speed limit on dual-carriageways from 50mph to 60mph. I’m counting the minutes before some prat argues that its a good idea because “dual-carriageways are the same as motorways”. No, they’re not. Dual-carriageways have lots of stopping points – traffic lights, roundabouts, and so on – and motorways don’t.

I guess the outcome is foregone conclusion – these “consultations” are just a small hoop that has to be jumped through before this crap government does whatever the hell it wants and then tells us it’s best for us.

Increasing speed limits for HGVs won’t get them from A to B any quicker than before. What it will do is get them from one set of lights, one roundabout, or one queue of traffic to another faster, on the assumption that they’ll be able to stop when they get there. And as we all know, HGVs don’t like slowing down unless they have to (they rarely let people merge if it means easing off the gas).

I’ve got an idea for a new videogame nasty, where cyclists with attitude take on HGV drivers with extra momentum.

And So The Tram IS Going To Be Late

27/06/2014

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I told you. I said back in January that they wouldn’t get the tram done in time for Christmas, but they kept saying they would.

Well, I just saw that infamous tram mouthpiece, Cllr Jane Urquhart, on BBC News admitting it wouldn’t be finished until early next year. She’s “disappointed” that it won’t be ready for Christmas, but “pleased” that the delay is “only slight”.

The thing is, the contractors haven’t been working nights or weekends for 95% of the time the disruption has been in place. However, I noticed that over the last few weeks this is no longer the case. It’s obvious that they were behind – from the various reported delays that have added months to the completion dates, to the amount of work that had obviously still got to be done. After all, it’s hard to keep defending dozens of kilometres of scorched earth with “it’ll be ready by Christmas” when the scorched earth in question still has deep holes with reinforced sides for sewer and drainage work, most of which have been in the exact same state for at least the last six months.

Being a tram worker is a real cushy number, as well. From what I’ve seen it seems to involve standing around all day texting on your phone and eating bacon sandwiches. Of course, the period I call “a day” has – until recently – only involved the time between 10am and 3pm Monday to Friday.

The tram is a waste of money, and all the people involved with it are not the best examples of efficient workers.

All of the above is “alleged”, of course. The people in question might instead be wonderful individuals who will get the tram finished on time, who work nights and weekends and have done since the work started, who don’t spend all day eating and texting, and so on. This is just for balance, of course.

Cost Of Theory Test To Fall By 25%

23/06/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DVSA, News, Transport

They put this out for consultation a few months ago. Amongst various things, they were asking for opinions about cutting the price of the Theory Test, which currently costs a mere £31 (well, a bit more if you’re stupid and pay for it via a scam site).

In my response, I made it clear that as far I was concerned the current price was fine as it was. Unfortunately, someone somewhere is after votes for next year’s General Election and dropping the price is the chestnut they were going to roast come hell or high water. The “consultation” was just a pointless exercise to show that they “listen” to the public.

As you can see in the DVSA email alert I linked to above:

The cost of the driving theory test will be cut by 25%, saving learner drivers over £100 million over the next 9 years.

Let’s just set the record straight here. That “£100 million over the next 9 years” is going to be split between around 13 million tests. It isn’t going to save ANY learner more than £8 for each time they attempt the test. That doesn’t look anywhere near as vote worthy, does it? A mere £8 versus £100 million. It’s also going to be phased, with £6 coming off this October, and another £2 next year.

And don’t even get me started on how it doesn’t save anyone anything if they never had to pay the higher fee in the first place. That’s like saying that when I go out and buy a pocket calculator for £5, I am saving over £80 because of how much they used to cost when they first came out. I’m not saving anything.

The real point is that the theory test lasts about 90 minutes, which breaks down to around £21 per hour. Allowing for building rent, systems maintenance, staff salaries (at least two staff), and so on, it is hard to see how the test can possibly be maintained for even £21 an hour, let alone £15 instead. I know enough about outsourcing to understand the true costs involved, and someone somewhere is ultimately losing money on this – or they will if the market shifts unpredictably in the medium term future.

Alastair Peoples can go on forever about having “secured” a lower price for the outsourcing contract (from which one must conclude that Pearson VUE has lost the contract, or else what the hell were they charging for up until now?) It is Stephen Hammond – LibCon Transport Minister – on a vote hunt which is at the root:

We want to keep costs down for all motorists – that’s why we have frozen fuel duty – and by reducing the cost of the theory test we will save aspiring motorists around £9 million annually.

As I say, it’s total bollocks. No one is saving “£9 million annually”. Each learner will save a mere £6 (going up to £8 in 18 months’ time) each time they take a test – and even then, if they turn 17 after the price falls, they have saved NOTHING. The only positive thing is that someone somewhere else is going to have to squander £9 million less than they have been doing previously.