The Tightly-Furled
Umbrella takes a poke at our vehicle usage and wonders whether government
intervention might not be a bad thing…
Picadilly Circus, with no performers |
This could of course end
up being no more binding than New Year resolutions – abandoned after a few
weeks when we get tired of the effort – but one aspect that I'm really hoping will change
is our use of motor vehicles. Make that 'overuse' of motor vehicles.
I would give anything to go
into central London right now and experience the deserted streets
with hardly any traffic and almost zero pollution. The peace and quiet would be
novel too. But alas I'm not an essential worker (more ‘essentially lazy’ if
anything) so I haven’t gone in, and it’s a bit far for me to justify as
‘exercise’.
Traffic cameras showing nearly empty roads on a weekday |
According
to the UK government, data recently recorded at 275 automated
sites show that journeys in vehicles are now around 35% to 45% of the usual
level, and even that takes into account ‘creep’. (No, that's not the strange
guy who drives past your place looking weirdly at your house – in this instance
it means our vehicle usage has slowly crept back up since lockdown was
introduced). The Automobile Association has reportedly said traffic
volumes in Britain are now 'akin to those in the early
1970s' when they were just one-third of what they are today.
But this is obviously due to
the government lockdown restrictions rather than any voluntary commitment on
the part of vehicle owners to ‘go green’ or use their cars less for a better
world. That said, another recent survey shows that many people are –
post-pandemic regulations – expecting their use of buses and trains will drop
and, importantly, 24% of those plan to work from home more.
Should the survey results
translate into actual changes in behaviours, this could mean we’ll see much
less traffic on the roads, drops in air pollution, fewer accidents, and less
reliance as an economy on oil and petroleum products. The roads will become a
bit safer for cyclists too.
So rather than wait for a
voluntary change in behaviour could the government not instead legislate for
fewer vehicles on the road? It’s been done before overseas, but did it work,
and could it work here?
Flashback to New Zealand , 1979 - the country was facing an oil crisis where
imports had become prohibitively costly, with OPEC raising the cost per
barrel from US$12 to $19 during the first half of that year. Worse perhaps was
the Iranian Revolution, which essentially shut down Iran ’s oil industry - 5.7 million barrels per day
were withdrawn from the world supply.
So, abandoning sheep
shearing contests and leaving their pavlovas to go soggy the Kiwi government
leapt into action and introduced the novel concept of ‘carless days’ on 30
July. They also reduced the open road speed limit from 62mph to 50mph.
The scheme – designed to
reduce the nation’s demand for, and reliance on, oil imports - required those with private
vehicles to nominate one day of the week on which they would not drive
their vehicles. This was enforced with the introduction of heavy fines for those
caught driving on their selected day. (There were exceptions for rural travel where public transport was almost non-existent, and ‘essential
travel’ as in today’s lockdown) The carless days scheme applied only to petrol-powered
vehicles and those weighing less than 4,400lbs. The restriction didn’t apply to
motorbikes, scooters or mopeds.
NZ's carless day sticker selection. Image: Facebook |
Less than a year after it
began the scheme was scrapped, partly because it wasn’t popular but also because it
didn’t reduce petrol consumption very much. (The reduced speed limit remained in place for a while longer) In principle carless days should have had an impact;
private vehicle usage could have dropped by approximately one-seventh, but
Kiwis are an inventive lot and many found ways of getting round the restrictions.
Owning a second car was one of them (some bought a second vehicle just to avoid
the scheme) while others purchased motorbikes.
A scathing newspaper column
from the day also shows that an estimated 25 percent of Kiwis had successfully
applied for legal exemptions to the scheme.
Obviously it wasn't working... |
There’s a memory shared on Wikipedia
of a bloke with a motorbike who could sometimes be found riding with his two flatmates
as pillion passengers... plus a dog. A few clever Kiwis realised that if you
applied for two different day stickers you could cover them in cling-film and
easily attach or detach them from your windscreen according to whatever day of
the week it wasn’t. Legally you were supposed to have your nominated sticker permanently attached.
But there are other stories
– rather like those today from people feeling guilty about flouting the lockdown
regulations – where motorists who drove their cars on their nominated carless
day ended up feeling blameworthy and embarrassed. In short, there was a lack of engagement with and commitment to the scheme.
Accepted behaviour. Image: Wikimedia Commons |
It’s a fact that if
regulations of any sort are introduced some people will always find a way
around them, but there are certain aspects of motoring where the culture has
changed to match and support legislation, such as anti drink-driving, and the wearing
of seat belts. So with the right approach to education, a groundswell of support
in society, and enforcement and fines or points on your licence for flouting
the law, behaviours can change. For carless days to be accepted today the concept would have
to become the social norm.
So maybe post-pandemic would be
a good time for the UK government to learn from New Zealand ’s wobbly carless days scheme and introduce a better and more
robust scheme here. Given that many people have realised during lockdown that
they actually don’t need to drive their vehicles every day, this could be the
perfect opportunity to permanently reduce the volume of traffic on our
congested roads. The engagement and commitment might already be there.
Or is it a good time to buy shares in
cling-film maybe?