High Court Ruling on Bike Parking Tax is deeply flawed – but it paves the way for a successful Appeal…

Some riders have been dismayed by a High Court Judgement against a claim lodged by NTBPT Chairman Warren Djanogly – that Westminster City Council used Traffic Act powers unlawfully, and to cover the creation of a new tax on motorcycle parking in on-street bays that had already been established and paid for. But I am not.

The first ruling in the courts was always going to find in favour of the council in my view as there is far too much at stake for the first judges on the case to cut to the chase and effectively acknowledge a truth that is incredibly inconvenient for our ‘Traffic Management’ policy shapers and shippers.

As most riders can see as plain as day, Westminster’s scheme had nothing to do with Traffic Management, it’s all about something completely different. IT’S JUST ABOUT THE MONEY HONEY!

But the problem they and we have is that UK law does not allow them to say they just want our money out loud. Amongst other things there is a major snag in the Local Government Act, 2000, (3.2) It expressly forbids any local authority from introducing a scheme run by private contractors that creates a revenue stream. But that all came too late to protect drivers from an extensive range motoring taxes because those evolved over decades, alongside a smart range of bureaucratic washing machines which the money goes into and comes out clean. Unfortunately for Westminster, the laundry service failed to work when they decided to try and tax riders in exactly the same way as drivers. It is clear for all to see – and even WCC admit it – that within a few months of starting their ‘experimental’ version of the motorcycle parking tax scheme, they made a cool ’surplus revenue’ aka profit, of half a million quid by the time they were legally entitled to make it permanent. Currently of course they claim to be making a loss, but if they can get away with keeping this tax they sure as hell won’t make a loss for ever...

Anyway, the reason I’m not dismayed about the ruling is that it has done even more than I’d hoped or expected. In order to find in favour of the council, the ruling would have to include fundamental flaws because nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that the Traffic Orders in question could do anything other than create a new revenue stream – and those flaws are now out there and open to successful attack and review. Better still – if there is any justice to be had – that will lead to the ruling being overturned.

Now, here is my take on where we are and what’s next, including a recap of the basics for anyone who is new to this saga. And I realise that what follows is a bit of a whopper of a read so I won’t be offended by the odd bit of nodding off, snoring or legging it up the pub – or gong for a ride instead. You can also take your time reading anyway as it will be the last thing I post for a bit as I am off at the end of the week to recharge the batteries for a couple of weeks, on a small island in the sun and warmer rain than we have here in Blighty.

And so, it came to pass…

The High Court ruling, of 16th July 2010, on a hugely significant claim that Westminster Council had used Traffic Act powers unlawfully, is fundamentally flawed in my humble but expert opinion by failures to grasp key facts and see black holes in the defence case. The claim was made on behalf of the NTBPT and all objectors to this regressive tax, of whom I am proud to be one, and it asserted that the council had effectively used Traffic Management Act legislation to cover the creation of a new tax on motorcycle parking in on-street bays that had already been established and paid for.

But the ruling is demonstrably wrong as far as I and a number of other observers are concerned, as it fails to address three fundamental flaws in Westminster’s defence of making the Traffic Orders in January 2010, that were made to convert an ‘experimental’ version of pay-by-phone charges for parking in on-street bays to a ‘permanent’ scheme.

The judgement identifies “two clear objectives the Authority sought to achieve the introduction of the parking orders”. And it says that these two objectives are legitimate goals for the Authority to try to achieve by using Traffic management Orders, to introduce new charges for on-street parking of motorcycles in bays that were already designated and paid for to accommodate use for that purpose.

The first legitimating ‘objective’ is, “to improve on-street parking availability for motor-cyclists” but this is demonstrably totally wrong, as it is not an objective that is identified at all in the official ‘reasons’ for a permanent version of the charging scheme. The second objective according to the judges was, “the termination of discriminatory treatment between motorcycles and cars.” But again, one of the big problems with that is that it was never identified by Westminster as such. Here, under ‘publications’ is where Westminster hid their reasons for the permanent scheme on their website – and they can be found in the Statement of Reasons document in PDF form. But see if you can spot either of the reasons that the judges say Westminster gave for the new charges, and that the judges said made the council’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a new tax lawful…

So, fundamental flaw No. 1. The judges have ruled that Westminster’s use of Traffic Orders to create a new revenue stream – and force riders to pay a new tax to park in bays that were already paid for – is ‘lawful’ because the ‘objectives’ for the new charges was to do two things that the council has never claimed as reasons for the new scheme… Er, how does that make sense in or out of a court of law?

But there is more that is wrong with this ruling. Fundamental flaw No. 2. The key question to be considered and ruled on in this case has been completely missed and left out of the judgement.

The critical question is not whether WCC could lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to introduce a new charge for motorcycle parking on public highways. The question to be ruled on is this: Can WCC lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to increase the powers it already had to manage demand for kerbside space – but without making a case that it’s existing powers had failed to manage such demand – AND in a way that would be rectified by the introduction of a new category of charges and trigger for penalty fines aimed at riders of scooters or motorbikes? And let’s get things clear here, as I explained to the judges in a section of my witness statement, WCC had all the powers it needed to control motorcycle parking and ‘manage demand for kerbside space’ by all motorised modes. There is not one inch of public highway controlled by Westminster where they have any demonstrable need to increase their power to decide who can park what, where and for how long – with or without out paying a fee or incurring a fine.

The last main flaw in the judgement of the case certainly has a critical impact on the rights and wrongs of the ruling for riders. But in my view it has an even greater impact on establishing the extent to which ‘consultation’ procedures about local authority use of Traffic Management powers can be skewed – in order to use them to do nothing more than create new revenue streams.

Throughout the entire consultation process on the ‘experimental’ version of the scheme, and once a decision had been taken in principle to make it permanent, consultees were consistently told that the main reasons for the new charges for on-street parking in designated bays was to fund further improvements to motorcycle parking amenities. But fortunately for all concerned now, I and other sceptics became increasingly bothered about the likelihood that Westminster were pushing the idea of funding further improvements as the ‘main reason’ for new bike parking charges, not because it was, but because it would limit the amount of opposition from key stakeholder consultees. So, in an attempt to push the council to reveal more about the main reasons they would give to ‘justify’ a decision to convert the experimental scheme into a permanent measure, I arranged and attended a meeting between Danny Chalkley who was Westminster’s Cllr in charge of the scheme at the time and Craig Carey-Clinch as the Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCIA) representative. In that meeting, dear old Danny smiled reassuringly and steadfastly denied that the main official reason for the charges was ‘demand management’ – and he repeatedly gave Craig and thereby the MCIA firm verbal assurances that the real reason for introducing new bike parking charges was to fund loads more improvements to on-street motorcycle parking. With my encouragement some weeks later, Craig invited Danny to confirm his assurances about the main reason in writing, but as I expected, that written confirmation never came.  But never mind all that well spun flannel flopping around in that meeting, as a matter of hard fact, Westminster made a fundamental change in the thrust of the official main reasons for the new charges. And, unfortunately for Westminster, I reported all that in the witness statement that the judges were obliged to read and consider. And the fact that the court’s first ruling seems to neatly avoid any consideration of those events doesn’t mean they can be ignored in a second round.

Anyway, a key fact of the case and in my view the lawfulness of Westminster’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a tax, is this: The first ‘main reason’ one was of course encouragingly positive for those who accepted it at face value, namely to improve the accommodation of rider’s needs to park – but the second one was extremely negative, namely to ‘restrain’ demand for bike on-street parking as the primary reason and to deter people from choosing to use a motorcycle at all in Westminster for unspecified ‘environmental’ and ’safety reasons.

But the most critical thing about this change that the judges ignored in their ruling was the timing of when that change was actually officially confirmed. The first time anybody concerned could know what the main reasons for the permanent version of the scheme really were, was when the Traffic Orders were published on January 22nd, 2010, just three days before the permanent version of the scheme came into force on January the 25th! Sounds a bit smelly? Not quite the way that truly legitimate consultation procedures are run? You bet.

To put it mildly, this neat trick had a crucial skewing impact on the reliability and validity of the consultation processes that has not been addressed at all in the ruling. To put it bluntly it was hugely misleading for all consultees at best, and at worst a key element in a very long con.

So, what’s next? Well, as far as I can see, so long as the NTBPT Barrister makes these flaws clear to the courts, the only way that justice can be done and seen to be done is for an appeal to be heard and a fresh ruling made. I’ve spent some of today making a few suggestions for the Barrister to consider as part of his request for an appeal and sent them off. So, all I can say for now is fingers crossed then…

Will justice be done and seen to be done in the High Court case against the WCC bike parking tax?

As most of you will know, I have been watching events at close quarters as Westminster Council try to roll out a new parking tax for scooter and motorcycle riders. I’ve also been doing what I can to guide all concerned towards a truly sustainable solution to the massive problems this regressive scheme has caused.

Recently this involved me being at the High Court for two days while the NTBPT case against the scheme was being considered. The case included a large amount of written evidence from both sides and an extensive witness statement from me as an independent Motorcycling Policy expert. I give my account of the proceedings below but first of all I set out what I think should happen next.

In my opinion, there is only one solution to the current mess that Westminster have got themselves into that is truly sustainable on all relevant levels, and it is simple. They should take steps to withdraw this totally unnecessary and unjustified tax and bin all plans to roll out such schemes to create a new nationwide revenue stream for local authorities.

The bottom line for me is that the council have not made any plausible case to justify the scheme as a traffic management measure. What their ‘reasons’ for the scheme amount to is a misuse of Traffic Management Act legislation and spurious references to a need for new charges to ‘manage demand’ for parking scooters and motorcycles on parts of the public highway that have already been established for that purpose.  Fortunately in my view there is a golden opportunity to make real progress towards a really sustainable solution.

As I have already suggested to Cllr Lee Rowley, the new guy in charge of the scheme in Westminster, he needs to take a golden opportunity presented by his current review of the whole saga and tell his colleagues that there are a great deal more disbenifits arising from trying to keep it in place in credit crunched Britain than benefits. He expressed enthusiasm for having a second meeting with me last time we spoke which I hope will happen soon.

In the meantime here is my summary of the NTBPT claim against Westminster City Council’s bike parking tax scheme. In essence the claim is that the Traffic Orders for the permanent scheme issued in Jan 2010, were not made according to all relevant regulations and that therefore the scheme is illegal and must be scraped.

And this is my take on how the hearing went…

There is no doubt that the authorities are taking this case extremely seriously as it was heard not by one judge, but two, including one of high seniority, Lord Justice, Sir John Pitchford.

During the first day he actually told the claimant’s barrister with a smile that he might be “pushing at an open door”. During the morning of day two, the NTBPT barrister made a series of well made points that caused the Westminster team to quite literally hold their heads in gloom. However, during the afternoon, the WCC defence barrister made a series of loose points and claims that the judges said were “unsubstantiated”. At one stage the proceedings took on an almost farcical tone as the Judges tried to get a clear idea of what the Western extension of the Congestion Charging zone was – and if it had anything to do with the case. Then, worryingly for all concerned with the claim, it seemed that the input from the defence was mostly accepted by the judges as a legitimate contribution to considering the pros and cons of the case. It seemed to me that the defence were being allowed to waffle about more or less anything without being held to account by the Judges on whether Westminster Council had really done what was legally required to justify making the scheme permanent. The simple two part question that was never asked of the council was this: What exactly is the problem you are saying you ‘need’ a new charging scheme to solve – and where is your evidence that you can’t address that problem fully with the immense amount of powers you already have to control parking of all vehicles on every inch of highway space under your management?

Obviously that did not bode well for a ruling against the new orders for the scheme…

In summarising where we ended up, I would suggest that it is impossible to say what the ruling will be, as there was so much written evidence that was only referred to briefly in the court. But although I still have some hope for a ruling in favour of the claim, there is a tremendous amount at stake here which the Judges revealed they were aware of. So, I have to strongly advise caution about assuming that just because the council did not really justify their new tax to the court, that the court will tell them to scrap it.

As far as I’m concerned some good points were scored for the claimants, but the NTBPT barrister may have put too much emphasis on a string of legal points drawn from previous cases than clearly spelling out the fundamental key points of the case against Westminster – even though the judges asked him to do just that on two or three occasions throughout the hearing.

So, here is my view of what the case is really about: The WCC Traffic Orders in question for the permanent scheme, made in Jan 2010, say that the main ‘reason’ to impose a new bike parking charge for on-street bays is a “need to manage demand for kerbside space” the key arguments against the scheme in my opinion are these:

1. WCC already had all the powers it needed to ‘manage’ and control parking of all vehicles, including motorcycles but without the new charging scheme.

2. The council has not made any case at all to justify an extension of their existing parking control powers, or produced a shred of evidence to support their waffled claim that charging bikes to park in existing on-street bays will make anything better.

3. The key reason that WCC gave for charging during the ‘trial’ scheme was to pay for better bike parking facilities, but that was dropped when it came to making the Traffic Orders to make the scheme permanent because as a matter of fact, all on-street motorcycle parking facilities in the form of bays and security devices that are subject to charging under the NEW orders made in January 2010, were all in place and paid for BEFORE the new orders were made.

4. No case has been made to show or evidence produced to prove that the imposition of a new charge for parking in on-street M/C parking bays has any impact whatsoever on WCC’s ability to manage demand for it.

5. The only truly plausible motive and reason for the new charges that Westminster have admitted to is a desire to use surplus revenue from the new scheme to address a fall in revenue from car parking.

The judges have said it may take them up to two weeks to reach a decision and issue a ruling so roll on July 9th…

Long Way Round M25 Mega demo against bike parking tax is a Roaring Success!!!!

Sometimes it’s great to be proved wrong. I have learned this more during the evolution of the NTBPT campaign than ever before. Like a number of people in the UK motorcycling world I have seen more than my fair share of hopes for progress, within the worlds of riders’ rights groups and related policy shapers, cut back or dashed. And, like some of my seasoned colleagues who have done all sorts over the years to improve government responses to rider’s issues, I have had moments of grave doubt about the advisability or even possibility of plans for action made by the NTBPT – under the passionate leadership of it’s chairman Warren Djanogly and his extraordinarily dedicated and multi-talented supporters.

And one of those moments was when I first heard about the idea of a mass demo ride all the way round the M25.  I can’t remember exactly what I said to Warren and his committee but I think it went along lines like these:  “You must be mad mate, that is one helluva an undertaking for an experienced rider’s rights organisation – let alone a new single issue campaign group.” And, like others, I added a few words of caution on the basis that the whole thing could go horribly wrong and do far more damage to the image of riders than good for our cause – and especially those with the courage or temerity to stand up and be counted in opposing a new and potentially nationwide tax on using scooters and motorbikes in the UK.

But the fact is that there was a spectacular demonstration of rider power to object in a legal and peaceful protest on Saturday – and it did not go wrong as various films show – with more to follow. In fact it all went right, it went right out of London and right round by The 120 mile Long Way Round, and right into the centre of the capital where the regressive and unjustifiable bike parking tax is currently in place. I can also report as an eye witness that it was given the thumbs-up by the police at every stage of the whole epic journey.

It is of course impossible to say what impact that particular demo will have on those who are still trying to find reasons to persist with a new tax on scooter and motorbike use. But one thing is sure for me. Every one of the thousands of riders who took part in this latest demo, on every type of scooter or motorbike imaginable, will have a stunningly clear picture of what is possible. And, the boundaries of what riders can know is possible have just been extended by miles.

Obviously, we will now have to wait and see what the three judges at the High Court make of the case against Westminster’s use of Traffic Orders to impose a new tax. But whatever the outcome from their first ruling after 2-3 days of deliberation, riders in Britain now know there is yet another way to make a legitimate and hugely impressive demonstration of their dissatisfaction with a step in the wrong direction, in this case by a few misguided souls who want to pioneer and spread a new ‘motorcycling policy measure’ under the cover of Traffic Management Act legislation, even though – as we all know – it is really just a TAX.

Great news for UK riders! Boris gives go-ahead for new bikes in bus lanes trial!

Finally I can report what I regard as great news from the Mayor of London regarding the bikes in bus lanes trial, and explain why it’s such good news. As I was told last week during recent talks with the Mayor’s transport advisor, Kulveer Ranger, but sworn to keep under wraps, Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has commissioned a new trial to look at the evidence for a permanent bikes in bus lanes ruling.

So, despite his controversial face to face clash with the No To Bike Parking Tax protesters in Trafalgar Square on 2nd June, in which he appeared to be “threatening” bikers, as the BBC reported, by saying that motorcycle access to bus lanes would end unless their protest against the Westminster bike parking tax stopped, the mayor has now decided to sanction a new trial of the bikes in bus lanes measure.

The important thing about this decision is this. The results of the most recent 18 month trial, which ends on 5th July, were too mixed and thereby limited to be sure if there is an overall benefit to all road users from allowing motorcycle riders to share use of bus lanes with cyclists and taxis. But now, after extensive analysis by Transport for London (TfL) of results from the latest trial,  Boris has announced that a new experimental scheme will start on July 5th July and run for another 18 months in order to gather enough evidence to reach conclusions that TfL and other transport authorities can rely on to make a conclusive decision about whether to make bike access to bus lanes a permanent measure or not.

Basically this is what’s happened and where we are now. An independent report of the most recent 18 month trial, which ends on 4th July, found positive results including that fears of an increase in collisions with cyclists have proved unfounded. However the Mayor has decided some important questions remain; particularly in relation to an increase in collisions between motorcyclists and cars turning in or out of side roads where motorcycles have access to bus lanes.
Now, the new experimental scheme will start in July and run for eighteen months, in order to gather more safety evidence for the Mayor to be able to make a conclusive recommendation about whether to make bike access to bus lanes a permanent measure or not.

Mayor Johnson exclusively told me as transport policy consultant to MAG and columnists for MSL: “I am honouring my pledge to let independently gathered evidence and analysis be the deciding factor about the overall impacts of the bikes in bus lanes measure.” He added that motorcycle and scooter riders “have made a persuasive case to be able to use TfL’s bus lanes, and if the prospect of quicker, easier journeys encourages more people onto two wheels then that will be for the good of everyone using our roads.”

Lastly he says that “the initial trial has shown positive results and the chaos that was predicted by some doomsayers has clearly not materialised.”

As far as I’m concerned, I am really delighted by the Mayor’s decision. Unlike his predecessor Ken Livingstone, to Bojo has had the balls to place hard evidence above political expediency and I genuinely believe that all concerned now have an invaluable opportunity to discover the full potential of this measure. It is also great to see that the new trial will be examining potential environmental and traffic flow benefits in addition to the key aim of researching and developing ever better ways to enhance safety for all for all vulnerable road users.

I was also briefed on the results of a separate study by TfL that used police traffic officers to study journey times in bus lanes. It  indicates that journeys made by motorcycles or scooters using bus lanes are, on average, more than 10 per cent quicker than those not using bus lanes and 36 per cent quicker than cars.

And Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor of London’s transport advisor, told me this. “One of our key policy areas is smoothing traffic flow and allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes can contribute to that aim. We already know people on two wheels can get around London more efficiently than those using four and believe they should be able to do so in bus lanes without affecting the safety of other road users. Kulveer went on to say: “Our trial has seen a number of successes but we want to tackle the issue of collisions with cars going in out of side roads. That is why the Mayor has advised that we run a second trial alongside a road safety campaign and training for motorcyclists. We also want to urge the motorcycle community using bus lanes to ride with respect and with a focus on reducing speed and increasing safety.”

Boris Johnson filmed ‘threatening’ to stop bus lane use by motorcycle and scooter riders – unless protest against WCC bike parking tax is called to a halt

In an extraordinary outburst from Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor, broadcast by BBC news, he makes what NTBPT protesters have called a “threat” to stop motorbike access to bus lanes – unless they stop protesting against Westminster’s highly controversial motorcycle parking charging scheme. This episode has now also been reported by Guardian blogger Dave Hill

The mayor can be clearly seen and heard saying: “Do you want to stay in bus lanes?” To which the rider at the protest says “of course we do” – with the Mayor replying: “Well stop this protest”.

In response, Warren Djanogly, Chairman of the No To Bike Parking Tax group,   said: “This would seem like a thinly veiled threat, bordering on blackmail.”

A fuller report of the incident was aired on BBC London News as the headline story for their lunchtime bulletin today.

The bikes in bus lanes measure to which the mayor refers is being run as a trial throughout the whole Red Route network of strategic roads in the capital.

But as it happens and with a bizarre coincidence of timing, the trial version of the measure is due to end with an independent report on the results due for submission to TFL this month.

Up until today, the Mayor had made it clear that the decision to keep bikes in bus lanes would depend entirely on the results of the report which is being conducted by TRL. Sources tell me that the trial results are likely to show that casualties involving cyclists have dropped in bus lanes which are shared with motorcycle and scooter riders. If so, that result alone should make it very difficult for our avid cyclist mayor to turn the clock back and stop motorbike access to bus lanes – as it may well cause a rise in casualties to his fellow riders.

As ever, we will have to wait and see what happens next. But my hope is that the Mayors’ newly focused concerns about the bike parking tax protest will now be focused on discussions about the real cause of that problem, namely the Westminster City Council scheme – which is not only hugely unpopular and has no demonstrable traffic management benefit – but according to the council is now running at a shocking loss. As it also happens I will soon be meeting with the new Westminster City Council Cabinet member who has inherited responsibility for this ill-conceived scheme and will be hoping to find a way forward that is truly sustainable and good for all concerned – including our colourful mayor!

Bike Parking tax latest! Pioneer of scheme is out of Westminster Cabinet!

UPDATE Wed, 26th May: It crossed my mind that the new guy to take responsibility for the bike parking tax saga may have as little idea as poor old Danny did about the full extent of ongoing problems he will be facing. So, being the kind and considerate soul I try to be, I have made contact with his P.A. and suggested that he and I might get together for a private chat to give him a bigger and more accurate picture of what is really going on – and that like-it-or-not the problems will not go away till the tax is ditched. The good news is that is that he would “like to meet’, but the bad news is that his availability is “very limited  at the moment”.

But having sent him a copy of recent letter from WCC leader Cllr Barrow, which seems to show that the leader may be trying to mislead a Conservative MP about the ‘reasons’ for the scheme, I have just been told that this has been passed to the new bod so I live in hope that this will improve his availability, but I won’t be holding my breath in the meantime…

I hear that Cllr Danny Chalkley, who was the cabinet member responsible for pioneering the much hated bike parking tax in Westminster may be feeling a bit grey. It is confirmed today that he is out of the council’s cabinet in a reshuffle. It is also confirmed that the new bod on the block for transport and parking schemes in Westminster is Lee Rowley

One bio of Rowley says he’s a ‘transport consultant’. If so that could be handy as his new post is called ‘Cabinet Member for Parking and Transportation’, and he will have responsibility for parking enforcement, major traffic projects, road safety, relations with TfL and utility companies.

Some have already described Chalkley’s exit as a ’sacking’. But, although there has been a significant change, I have no news on the real reason for his exit. He certainly made it clear to me some months ago that he had totally had enough of being the in that post – although he didn’t go into great detail about why.

But the biggest question right now about this move is what, if anything will it mean for the future of the bike parking tax? Is the council simply adding a new gun to continue trying to blaze a trail for this totally unjustified new tax on parking scooters and motorbikes? Or, are Westminster’s big burghers finally seeing sense and taking the first step to pave the way to bin the barmy bike tax?

Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour opposition in Westminster and frequent critic of the council’s handling of parking management certainly hopes so. Dimoldenberg tells me that Cllr Chalkley has “paid the price for the very many parking failures that have engulfed Westminster over recent years.” He then adds a call to scrap the ‘much hated’ motorbike parking tax:

“We now call on the new Cabinet Member for Parking, Councillor Lee Rowley, to finally see sense and to scrap the hated motorbike parking tax. It is time to start afresh and the only way to do this is for the Council to admit that the motorbike parking charges have been an incredibly unpopular and expensive mistake”

Cllr Colin Barrow, Conservative leader of the council who still owes his own council at least £19,186, offers a different view. “Westminster is one of the best and most cost effective authorities in the country.” And he goes on to say that the new appointments have been made “to ensure we continue to provide excellent value for money for local taxpayers while strengthening our services to vulnerable people” – unless of course you happen to ride a scooter or motorbike and need to park it in the centre of London.

Like countless thousands of others, I certainly hope that good sense is at last starting to prevail in future plans for motorcycle parking in central London – and a town near you next. But, I should add that clear examples of good sense being combined with parking policies in Westminster are hard to find – so holding breath while waiting for the next example to come along is not advised…

Coalition government in Britain can be good for UK riders

Update to blog. We now have a new Secretary of State for Transport. His name is Philip Hammond and although he is new to the transport policy arena, my sources tell me that he is unquestionably bright and by all accounts so far, as good an egg as we could hope for in these challenging times. Even the Guardian describe him as an “Intelligent picador” However, what with one thing and several others, this post now looks set to remain a work in progress and normal service will have to wait until after the Sunday – and my return from the forthcoming annual gathering of around 80,000 people with a common interest in motorcycles scooters and trikes and who make a pilgrimage each year to the East of England Showground for the BMF Show this weekend…

The first coalition government since 1945, has changed the way Britain will be governed in the foreseeable future. Now, as a new style of UK government takes shape, the key people behind the highly successful Riders Are Voters campaign (RAV) and yours truly, reckon that this creates some seriously good new possibilities for improving the way that UK riders issues are addressed.

But in my view, there is one key factor above all for riders to keep in mind. Whatever you think of our hung Parliament and the MPs who will be in a coalition government that is going to decide what happens next, one thing is certain. ‘Minorities’ can have more influence on the shape and direction of future policies than they have in living memory. And as it happens, although riders of motorcycles and scooters are a minority; with 3 million motorcycle licence holders in Britain, 1.3m scooters and bikes on the road, and more than 60,000 people employed in biking businesses, we are a ****ing big minority and one that is growing bigger all the time.

It is also an undeniable fact (unless you are a head in the sand anti-bike loony) that increasing use of scooters and motorcycles is an essential part of the solution to the many chronic problems that arise from urban and inter-urban road congestion. And to help to ease the economic and social exclusion problems that many face due to inadequacies in our overstretched transport system. Traveling by foot, bicycle bus or train is fine and dandy for some trips but not, as a matter of demonstrable fact, for all or even most trips that real people and real goods really need to go on.

But the new situation also means that we will have to fight more effectively than ever to get our views heard and action taken to deliver any real progress during the new parliamentary term. We are not alone in the queue of minorities wanting sharper focus on our concerns and more action than talk about progress.

So here is a key fact or two about our new parliamentarians that may have gone noticed amidst all the recent fuss about who is doing what with who.  Of the 649 MPs elected on 6th May, 232 were not doing that job before and most are completely new to it.

However, fortunately for all concerned about UK riding issues, the big influx of new MPs was no surprise to the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG). For quite a long time in advance, they knew and some of us had been discussing the fact that a large number of MPs were retiring at the election or ‘jumping before they were pushed’.  Clearly, with appropriate campaign action on behalf of all riders, this presented a great opportunity to make sure that the fresh Parliament is more rider-friendly than the last. Working on that basis, MAG invited the British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF), the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA) and the Auto Cycle Union (ACU) to join forces under the RAV campaign banner.

Key Facts 2: Around 5,000 voters in each constituency may be directly affected by motorbike related policy and legislation.

So, in order to ensure that riders and politicians took more notice of these facts of voting life, the RAV team organised ‘Riders Question Time’ events throughout the UK. In effect, as some of you may have experienced first hand, these events were like old-fashioned hustings in bike dealers’ showrooms where the audience of riders would be on familiar ground and able to express their concerns and views and hear what the candidates’ had to say for themselves and the parties they were representing.

But now that the voting is all over, the real work of the RAV concept and promoters of riders interests is about to start in earnest. And the bottom line for riders who want to influence the way they get treated by our new government is this. The issue of who’s in number ten Downing Street is obviously a matter for chewing the fat over for a while, but is probably far less important than it may seem.

The really crucial thing to think about and do next is this. A more effective way needs to be developed to ensure that riders’ concerns about various critical issues are brought to the attention of the whole range of MPs we now have, in the most effective and clear way possible. Obviously the NTBPT and it’s fabulous array of supporters are doing a great job regarding the totally unjustifiable bike parking tax in Westminster.

But that is just one of many critical elements of policy development that can have a big impact on all UK riders.  So I will end for now by saying that UK riders have a better opportunity to influence government thinking they have had for generations. And for what it’s worth, I think that the prospects of making the most of these opportunities will depend on two things above all. First, it will be essential that various rider groups stay focused on working co-cooperatively not competitively. Secondly, that the best way to ensure that this happens is by riders of all persuasions doing all they can to support – and do some of the ongoing work that needs to done in accord with the Riders Are Voters concept and ongoing campaign.

Is internet Rage Against Labour and Conservative Machines boosting Lib Dem standing and will it give UK riders a well hung parliament?

Remember when RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE stuffed Simon Cowell’s super slick X Factor plan to be No. 1  last Christmas? See this groovy vid for a timely reminder and please crank the sound up to full chat. I’m reminded of this as Labour and the Conservatives seem increasingly focused or even desperate to direct their party machine’s power at persuading us all that a well hung parliament would be a very bad thing.  But would it?

To be honest I’m just not sure what would be best for UK riders. But right now it looks increasingly likely that none of the three main parties will gain an overall majority number of MPs. After all, the maths is simple. Labour will lose it’s majority with the loss of just twenty seats, while the Tories would have to gain one hundred to achieve and overall majority. And, although some say it is impossible for UK voters to positively choose a hung parliament, the BBC is beginning to question that theory and ask:

Can the web organise a hung Parliament?

Frankly I rather doubt it, but there are some in our midst like the Hang ‘em crew who want to give it dam good try!

Apparently their aim is “not ideological” – it’s all about voting for people with “integrity and character” including Tories and Labour candidates with a “record of rebellion.”

All I can say at the moment is that if the Conservatives get to choose who will run transport in Britain, I am reliably informed that the current team of Theresa Villiers and Robert Goodwill have been given a “very big hint” that there will be “no major changes” coming soon. And I was also assured by the Lib Dem’s parliamentary candidate for Vauxhall, Caroline Pidgeon, at the London Riders Are Voters event – that she would be delighted to set up a post election meeting with their Shadow Transport minister Norman Baker to discuss how their policies might be better focused on riders issues.

So, there yo go for now and let’s see what riders reckon about the thorny issue of whether we will get a well hung parliament and whether we will be better or worse off if we do…

Will Lib Dem support for Road Pricing face riders with new charges although Motorcycles and Scooters don’t congest?

Let me start by saying that this blog is not triggered by a desire to pore scorn on any of the three major parties. But it is fuelled by a deep frustration that despite the fact that motorcyclists and scooterists are a small but significant group of road users and the electorate, all of the main parties have addressed rider’s concerns and issues in the run up to the election with a deafening silence so far…

So. Spotting significant differences between the key proposals for transport by the three main UK political parties is, as far as I can see, close to a needle in haystack hunt. But when it comes to trying to decide which one of the main parties may have the most to offer riders of motorbikes, mopeds or scooters, it gets even more difficult – even after or perhaps especially after the second ‘gloves off’ televised leaders debate – where a clear winner was difficult for anyone to pick who was looking at it without a preconceived political inclination.

Clearly, after the first TV debate a new ‘I agree with Nick‘ craze began, and now it seems that the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg may still just be top of the pops in style for TV debate viewers. But, as I have none of the party leaders on offer for me to vote for on May the 6th, I’m more interested in what their party polices are and whether they are likely to improve the way motorcycling related issues are addressed or make them worse.

Sadly as far as I’m concerned, there seems to be space in each party’s manifestos; Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem, for a few ‘politically correct’ lines on the wonders of  walking and cycling, although many of those who make up the nationwide totals are actually too young to vote – whereas there is no manifesto place for mention of powered two wheeler rider’s issues – even though there are well over 1.5 million of us, and the fact is that most Riders ARE Voters.

This leaves me with no alternative for now but to dig deeper into what the three main parties are saying about their policies for road users in general. And there lies at least one potential bombshell for the future of UK motorcycling.

There is one difference above all that could be a key factor in ending the ‘I agree with Nick’ craze that kicked off after the first televised leaders debate – and this could have a decisive impact on some key marginal seats including Richmond in London where transport and ‘motoring taxes’ are big bones of contention…

The Lib Dems want to “use road pricing revenue to cut fuel duty” according to an ePolitx.com summary in a concise and accurate list of key transports policy proposals by the three parties.

To be fair, the Lib Dems seem to think they have found a way to prevent a potentially devastating wave of objections to this proposal among a big majority of voters. Buried at the back of their manifesto on page 80, they say road pricing will not be introduced straight away but in “a second parliament” and that it would be “revenue neutral“.

But Lib Dem hopes that the UK electorate will trust any assurances about a new nationwide motoring tax, flies in the face of all the hard evidence of public opinion to date. The simple facts are that every time that the great British public have had a chance to vote on a proposal for a Road Pricing aka Congestion Charging scheme; 75% of them have said no.

Despite the massive efforts and even ‘bullying‘ by the current Labour government to push such schemes in Edinburgh and Manchester, (which I investigated and reported on extensively during my time at LTT) all hopes to impose such schemes were emphatically crushed.

And, lest we forget or you didn’t know, all the truly well informed experts on this issue agree that the main reason that Livingstone got away with imposing his Congestion Charge in London was that he had none of the trappings of a major political party to bother with when he steamrollered the scheme onto the streets during his first term in office – as he had been chucked out of the Labour party before his election as mayor for daring to defy their choice of more biddable mayoral candidate.

It is also a fact that Londoners only had two opportunities to vote on a Western Extension of the central London scheme and 70+% said no on both occasions. The first was on whether to go ahead with it which Ken Livingstone ignored, and the second was to keep it or remove it which Boris Johnson respected.

Now, the Conservatives have distanced themselves from any plans for nationwide road pricing – apart from a scheme for lorries which presumably they hope will not grab widespread attention or adverse reactions. And although Labour have said they will not try to introduce road pricing in during the next parliament, there are responses to Freedom of Information Act questions to show they may be secretly plotting to introduce it if they could in due course.

All this leaves Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem parliamentary candidate colleagues standing alone as manifesto advocates of nationwide road pricing – with Labour quietly waiting in the wings with hopes of joining forces to introduce it. But, there is at least one place where there there is a good chance of this turning into a big clanger for the Lib Dems, namely Richmond. Since the creation of this constituency the seat has been held by Lib Dem stalwart, Susan Kramer, who is to my personal knowledge a very big fan of the whole Road Pricing idea. However, her opponent in this election is none other than the Scooterist Conservative Zac Goldsmith who I know from recent conversations is extremely focused on trying to deliver a win for him and the Tories.

In the interests of balance I should say that I know there are a few key figures in the upper echelons of the Conservative party who are still very keen on the road pricing idea, but at least the party whips and policy wonks have the political sense to ensure they stay schtum for now.

So, never mind how many politicians ‘agree’ with Nich Clegg, the Lib Dem link to a new nationwide motoring tax may disincline a significant number of voters from joining that gang…

TV debate for political leaders highlights what they think are ‘key’ issues but will riders be left in the gap between them? Answers in London on Monday?

I felt quite proud of myself last night for doing something that I don’t often do.

I watched a TV debate between the UK’s top political bananas without shouting at the telly once, or feeling close to being overwhelmed with a desire to chuck something hard and heavy at it. Normally, I avoid most televised ‘question and answer’ shows because that is generally what they are, a show. And in case you missed it, the ‘Leaders Debate’ show last night has already spawned more – and tens of thousands of Googlable pages of comment. And just in case you have been living up a tree for a while, it involved the UK’s mainstream party leaders; Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.

But the problem for me is that I’m more interested in what politicians actually do or don’t do, than what they say in strings of highly spun and painstakingly rehearsed words. Like most people I have some interest in such things as health, education and how much tax I’m going to have to pay and for what, but my primary focus is on what our politicians will do to really improve the way we can get ourselves and the stuff we need to and from where it needs to be.

Speaking generally this is called transport but the element I’m most concerned about is what happens to the one and a half million or so riders of motorbikes, scooters and mopeds in Britain.

Sadly for me, none of our great political leaders said anything noteworthy about transport generally or riders specifically – unless you count a bit  of clap-trap about new High Speed Rail links that there is no money to pay for and the tree-huggers would stop being built even if there was.

The good news for me is that beyond the glitz and glare of TV studios our politicians who want to be part of the next parliament are having to get out and about and talk about the things that matter to their potential voters and this include riders. Yes folks Riders Are Voters as the RAV campaign is trying to explain. And if you happen to be a rider voter there is still time to see what politicians will at least say they will do for you. Go to the RAV website or Facebook page for details of events near you. And if you happen to be in London on Monday the 19th you can come along to a real live question time at the Hein Gericke shop in Stockwell. This will have real live prospective parliamentary candidates and an appropriate panel of experts and riders issue people – including me… You have been warned!