In this Edition Bromley Highway Measures Lewisham Covid-19 Transport Hackney Road Closures Tower Hamlets, Waltham For-est, Westminster, Islington and the City of London Road Closures Park Lane and Euston Road Note for Councillors South Row Closure Petitions Against Closures Air Quality and the ULEZ Road Policing Hammersmith & Fulham TfL Needs Another Bail-Out Cycling and Walking Revolution Highway Code Changes
Editorial The ABD has received a large number of complaints about the road closures in Lewisham (see one of them below—euphemistically called a “modal filter” as it allows cyclists through). Why can’t councillors and council staff call a spade a spade? Probably because they wish to conceal the truth from the public.
Comments received are overwhelm-ingly opposed to the closures. You can see some of them in a document published on our campaign web page here: https://tinyurl.com/wxh2k2l
We also now have over 3,300 signa-tures to our petition against the closures including many comments which you can see here: http://chng.it/ft4KcrVM
We are delivering the leaflet we have distribut-ed in the Lee Green area to other wards in Lewisham in the next few days – it has received the highest response rate of any
campaign leaflet we have delivered in the last ten years. Meanwhile opposi-tion grows to road closures in the rest of London—see later articles in this newsletter. But you do need to tell your own councillors what you think about what is happening. It would also help to tell your London Assem-bly Member and your local Member of Parliament.
If you need assistance to run a cam-paign against road closures in other London boroughs please let me know.
Road closures are like the Covid-19 infection. Spreading rapidly for no obvious reason. Make sure you don’t succumb to this irrationality.
Roger Lawson (Editor)
Quotes of the Month “We consult local residents, not the rat‐runners”.…...Councillor Jon Burke in Hackney on his an ‐democracy approach (see ar cle on page 3). “This scheme is clearly designed to be a revenue raiser by Labour run Hammersmith and Fulham Council”…. Greg Hands, M.P. on their traffic reduc on scheme—see page 9.
See the last page for publisher and contact information.
Click on any index item below to go directly to the article in a digital edition.
ABD London NewsABD London NewsABD London News Number 75—August 2020
ABD News
Bromley High-way Measures Anyone with an interest in the activities of the local London Boroughs as regards highways measures will know that a revolu-tion is taking place for two reasons: 1) The Mayor and TfL have run out of money so funding by Tfl for previously approved highways schemes has been stopped; and 2) the Covid-19 epidemic has prompted the Government to ask local council-lors to bring in measures to promote “social distancing” and encourage walking/cycling to relieve pressure on public transport and roads. Some money is available in grants for such measures but they have to be bid for in a competition that will be judged on merit.
Bromley Council have published what they may submit in a docu-ment that explains the process. Many of the proposed measures may be temporary, but some might be made permanent. Plans for “Healthy Neighbourhood” or “Mini-Holland” schemes which include road closures may have
lost previous funding, but they might still be snuck in using the new funding measures. It is therefore important if you live in London to keep an eye on what your local borough is proposing because there will otherwise be minimal public consultation. The proposals are considered urgent now because of the epidemic and decisions are simply being delegated to council staff to push them through quickly. More details on Bromley’s proposals and the Editor’s comments on them are in this blog post: https://tinyurl.com/yyr9sg3s The proposals include one for removing some parking from Chislehurst High Street to enable widening of the pavements—something your Editor has long supported. Roger Lawson
Lewisham Covid-19 Transport Responses As in many other London bor-oughs, Lewisham Council have developed a Covid-19 Transport Plan which is in response to the epidemic where social distancing is required. This involves widen-ing pavements, providing more cycle lanes and some road closures, much to the anger of local residents. More details are now available in a report to Councillors. I’ll summarise some of the key points: It includes proposals to create more pedestrian space, quieter residential streets (I think they mean without traffic), safer space for pedestrians/cyclists (i.e. more and wider cycle lanes and wider pavements) and creating safer
space outside schools (i.e. road closures called “School Streets”). Council officers have been given “delegated powers” to create the necessary traffic orders, parking suspensions, temporary barriers and other infra-structure with enforcement via camera technology. In other words, council officers will be able to implement the kinds of proposals previously put forward in the “Safer Neighbour-hoods” proposals without further public consultation or even input from Councillors. The Council has gained additional powers to do these things under new Statu-tory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps). Effectively the new Guidance drives a coach and horses through local democ-racy and enables Councils to do what they want without any restraint or input from local residents.
The Council’s initial proposals included restricting parking on such roads as Deptford High Street, Luxmore Gardens, Coul-gate Street and Hither Green Lane. These proposals are not unreasonable in some of these roads. They also propose as a second project to introduce “modal filters” to create quieter and safer roads. This is just a euphemism for closing roads to all traffic except cyclists. Continued on next page.
Lewisham (Cont.) These closures (such as the one in Upwood Road shown on the previous page) have been vigorously opposed by many residents. The Council is using Temporary Traffic Orders to close roads. The ABD believes this is a mis-use of the regulations and we are currently taking legal advice on it. The closure of roads using the epidemic as an excuse makes no sense. Closing roads does not help social distancing. It just favours one category of road users over another. And it is clear that there is the intention to make these closures permanent in due course. See https://tinyurl.com/y3av5mds for more information
Hackney Road Closures The London Borough of Hackney is closing a number of roads using Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs). These do not require any consultation before being put into effect; you can only comment later. Councillor Jon Burke is the Cabinet Member on the Council responsible for these moves. When I complained on Twitter about these closures and the lack of consultation, he respond-ed “We consult local residents, not the rat-runners”. Clearly Councillor Burke has no clear idea on how democracy should work. Calling people who use vehicles “rats” is abusive and it is wrong to ignore the general public but just listen to a few people.
In reality most of the people using these roads will be local residents. This unfortunately is the kind of thing that is happening of late in some London boroughs (Lewisham is another example), where the Covid-19 epidemic is being used as an excuse to close roads. Local democracy is being under-mined by claims of expediency. Road closures do not help with social distancing. They also create more traffic congestion and longer journey times. It’s basically just an excuse to pander to the wishes of cyclists as these are closures using “modal filters” that still allow cyclists. The ABD believes that all roads should be shared by different users, not closed to vehicle traffic. For more details, see https://tinyurl.com/y58f5es5
Tower Hamlets, Waltham For-est, Westmin-ster, Islington and the City of London Road Closures In addition to Lewisham and Hackney, road closures are also taking place in Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Westminster and the City of London using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse. See https://tinyurl.com/y47r9z3c and https://tinyurl.com/y6eb7kmx for details. The London Borough of Islington is using the same tactic of clos-ing roads using Experimental Traffic Orders. They are using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse to make them “people
friendly streets”. They are also using the CommonPlace system as an alternative to proper public consultation. There is substantial opposition to the closures which is forcing traffic onto other roads. A petition against the proposals has been created and public demonstrations already organ-ised. For more details see: https://tinyurl.com/yytos8d9 Closing roads is hardly ever justified and particularly so at the present time when an efficient and open road network is so essential for transport of all kinds.
Park Lane and Euston Road Transport for London (TfL) have been active in reducing road space in London by claiming an epidemic emergency. They have introduced a cycle lane on Park Lane, and with the bus lane that has reduced what used to be a three-lane road to one lane. This is one of the key North/South roads in London and the result is heavy traffic congestion extend-ing to roads such as the Edgware Road. Continued on next page.
ABD News
Follow us on Twitter To get the latest news and comment on traffic and transport issues in London, you can follow us on Twitter.
Our Twitter handle is @Drivers_London . Any new ABD London blog posts are notified by Twitter and you can of course respond with your own comments.
Park Lane and Euston Road (Cont.) The new cycle lane on Park Lane is little used though because there is a good alternative route
through Hyde Park (see photo left) which is also more pleasant to use. Another road TfL have now damaged is Euston Road, a key east-west route. One lane has been removed and a speed limit of 20 mph imposed. Long queues of traffic have been the result. TfL just seem to be kow-towing to the demands
of cyclists and other anti-vehicle groups and the result is great damage to the road network. Longer journey times, more traffic congestion and more air pollution is the result. London is becoming a “no-go” area for any-one who wishes to drive and use private transport rather than risk using public transport.
Note for Councillors The following is a note you could send to your local Councillors to deter them from following the lead of those boroughs who are already closing roads: Dear Councillor, In the current Covid-10 Epidemic, the Government is encouraging local Councils to introduce measures to temporarily: a) Provide more social distancing for pedestrians – for example by widening pavements. b) Encourage the use of active transport modes such as cycling or walking so as to relieve the pressure on public transport where there will be lim-ited capacity in the short term and to encourage
people to use other forms of transport than cars where increased use might lead to congestion. That includes new Statutory Guidance under the Traffic Man-agement Act 2004. The sugges-tion is that Temporary Traffic Orders might be used to imple-ment such measures, where such Orders are required. I have no objection to ensuring that pavements are sufficiently wide to avoid close contact, the possible suspension of parking bays to enable wider pavements and some provision of cycle lanes on a temporary basis so long as road space is not perma-nently removed. However, there is a suggestion that road closures might also be considered. Closing roads (e.g. by the use of “modal filters” or “school streets” involving timed closures) provides absolutely no benefit in terms of social distancing and should therefore not be consid-
ered unless there are very good reasons to do so. Neither do they encourage cycling as roads can always be shared between cyclists and other road users. In addition road closures delay emergency service vehicles who have to take longer routes or can get delayed by extra traffic congestion on main roads. When ambulances are delayed, seconds can count in keeping people alive. Could you please therefore ensure that our local council does not close roads, even temporarily, in response to the Covid-19 epidemic. It is extreme-ly important that the road network is maintained in a fit state and no artificial restraints are placed on it. Road closures can very rarely be justified even in normal times and it is particularly important at present not to create longer journey times and more traffic congestion.
It is also important to bear in mind that many disabled and elderly people rely on their motor vehicles and they will certainly not be capable or willing to cycle or walk instead. Regrettably the Government seems to have ignored a sub-stantial section of the population in some of their advice but there is no good reason why you need to go to such extremes. Please consider my comments above and advise your policy on this issue. <END> Councillors details including contact information are usually readily available from a council’s web site.
ABD News
South Row Closure In Lewisham there has been very strong opposition to the closure of South Row (adjacent to Black-heath) by local residents. The modal filter “planters” that were put in place were pushed aside or people simply drove around them on the heath. A bollard with a lock on was then put in place. But the photograph above was widely distributed on twitter. The fire engine was not in fact on an emergency call, they were probably just reviewing the
barrier. But after there were objections from a property on South Row who could not receive a large delivery vehicles and perhaps the number of com-plaints from residents, the barrier has now been removed. There has also been removal and vandalism of barriers in other roads in Lewisham which rather shows the strong feelings of residents.
Petitions Against Road Closures In addition to the petition against road closures in Lewisham, which the ABD raised and which now has over 3,300 signatures, there are a large number of other petitions for other boroughs. See this page for a known list: https://tinyurl.com/y4oqkxkz Why not sign all of them?
Air Quality and the ULEZ It’s a Vindictive but Unjustified Measure This article is by James Hockney who is a Councillor in the London Borough of Enfield and repre-sents the Bush Hill Park ward. He was the Conservatives Parliamentary Candidate for the Edmonton constituency at the last General Election. We all want better air quality, right? Well, I have good news for you. It is getting better. The map from 2013 below shows almost all of London outside the Central London Congestion Charge area with emissions within safe levels. Main trunk roads and major junctions, plus Heathrow, are the exceptions. However, this map is seven years old and the situation has improved.
In the latest report on Air Quality from Aether UK, which dates from 2017, it was estimated that almost all the areas identified as having dangerous levels of pollu-
tion in a study in 2010, now had safe levels of air quality. TfL’s own figures show a steady fall in emissions of NOx and this is predicted to continue.
There are a number of reasons for this. European Union legisla-tion has been requiring lower emissions from vehicles for more than two decades. The latest standards are deemed accepta-ble, even in the new Ultra Low Emission Zone in Central Lon-don. Heavier vehicles have also been subject to the “Low Emis-sion Zone” - which covers almost all of London - since 2008. A Ken Livingstone policy; implemented by Boris Johnson. Car use has also fallen dramati-cally, with journeys to work by car or motorcycle in London halv-ing from almost 154m a year in 2000 to just over 70m a year in 2017. Cycling in the same period has almost quadrupled from 11m to 40m and public transport use has increased from 260m journeys to 330m. Continued on next page.
ABD News
Air Quality and the ULEZ (Cont.) So, are further measures justified? The chart to the right from the Aether UK report suggests not: Already, it is estimated that fewer than 1% of Londoners are exposed to air quality above the safe level. This is attributed to earlier tightening of vehicle standards and modal shift away from cars, trends that are continuing. Lastly, whilst it is an emotive issue - and whenever one of those poorly maintained vans drives past you with its exhaust belching sooty black smoke, a very visible and noxious one - the focus on vehicles is perhaps missing the point.
Again, TfL’s own reports show that domestic and commercial gas heating is the source of almost one quarter of all NOx emissions and almost half of those in Central London. Interest-ingly, at the time of the consulta-tion on expanding the ULEZ, the figures for all of London showed road transport responsible for 51% of all emissions. This suggests they have fallen by a quarter in the last seven years. When it comes to particulate emissions the story is similar. Tightening standards have cut PM10 particulate emission from vehicles by almost 95% and PM2.5 emissions have fallen by 75%. It is also unlikely that the ULEZ will cut particulate emis-sions very much anyway, as the majority of particulates come from brake and tyre wear and the “re-suspension” of those particles.
Switching to electric vehicles isn’t going to help with that as they still need to steer and stop. This rather makes the very marginal benefit of extending the central London ULEZ out to the A406/A205 boundary appear to be a vindictive measure, not one driven by evidence. There is a very marginal early benefit, coming from an assumption that it will bring forward decisions to change vehicles, but by 2030, emissions are predicted to be at exactly the same level with or without the scheme. Sadly for some people that is not going to be an option. The high-mileage company car will get changed. But if you are an elder-ly couple with limited cash and a fixed pension income, changing a car you probably bought expect-ing it to see you out, is probably not an option.
So, they will pay £12.50 to drive to their local hospital. And that just doesn’t seem fair. It also seems unfair that the motorist is demonised as the polluter when they have done more than anybody else in the past twenty years to improve air quality. The expansion of ULEZ is part of a concerted attack on motorists and driving. At the same time, Councils are pushing ahead with projects like re-building the Edmonton incinerator. This project alone will emit more than 10% of the likely emissions from all the non-exempt vehicles cur-rently driving in London. And it will generate extra traffic on the A406 as it needs to bring waste in from a far wider area than the seven partner Boroughs which form the North London Waste Authority. Continued on next page.
ABD News
Air Quality and the ULEZ (Cont.) It is by rethinking projects like the Edmonton incinerator and by focussing on reducing our reliance on gas for domestic and commercial heating and cooking where those gains will need to come from. If you want to help stop the expansion of the zone, please sign the petition at www.stopulez.com , share this message with your friends, family and work colleagues and consid-er donating to help support more adverts around London to raise awareness. More useful charts follow:
Road Policing And Making Money from Speeding A very interesting report has recently been published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Con-stabulary and Fire & Rescue Ser-vices (HMICFRS) under the title “Roads Policing: Not Optional”. It has some particularly interesting things to say about the use of speed cameras but is generally critical about the fall in attention to roads policing. Staff and other resources have been reduced over the last few years, with automated enforcement of speeding offences when all the other dangerous driving activities are ignored.
The chart above from the report shows how road fatalities in the UK have plateaued in the last ten years. The report states bluntly that “Roads policing in some
forces is inadequate”. It is clear that many police forces do not consider roads policing a priority.
Fatal and serious injury road accidents where illegal speed is a factor (above the speed limit) also frequently feature a cocktail of drugs, alcohol and crime and hence are not amenable to auto-mated enforcement. The ABD has long argued for more police officers to be deployed on our roads. Instead expenditure on roads policing has been cut and ever more emphasis is placed on speed enforcement when that is a factor in relatively few road casualty accidents. The HMICFRS Report is particu-larly interesting on pages 28 to 30 where it discusses the finan-cial arrangements associated with police speed camera opera-tions. For example it says: “Crucially, what constitutes recovery of costs is open to inter-pretation”. That hints, and quite correctly, that police forces are generating profits that are used on anything they choose as the ABD has previously claimed (see www.speed-awareness.org for details of the evidence).
The report also suggests that police forces and local safety partnerships should publish on an annual basis the details of revenue and on what that revenue is spent. The report also notes this: “This apparent unwillingness to support education over enforce-ment had led to suspicion among officers, including some at chief officer level, that the focus of activity was intended to increase revenue for the safety partner-ship. In support of this, they gave examples of some camera sites that they believed didn’t have a history of collisions or other identified vulnerabilities”. And “Elsewhere, we were told that the reason enforcement took place at certain locations was that they were ‘good hunting grounds’, rather than because they had a history of collisions”. The report suggests that guide-lines over how and where cameras are located should be refreshed. But the problem will
remain that where there is a financial incentive, the abuse will continue as police forces contin-ue to be short of money. It is just too much of a temptation to concentrate on speed enforce-ment rather than focus on the road safety issues that might reduce deaths and injuries. The whole system needs to be reformed to stop the abuses that cause millions of drivers to pay money to the police and the course operators for “education” which has not been shown to have any road safety benefit whatsoever.
ABD News
Follow the Blog The ABD London region has a blog where many of the articles herein first appeared. It is present here: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/ To get the latest news as it appears, follow the blog.
the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on revenues. They are now seeking another £3.5 billion. Apart from the epidemic impact, an additional problem has been the further delay in the comple-tion of Crossrail. It was supposed to open next summer but any new date is unknown. This was budgeted to add significantly to TfL’s revenue. The Government is undertaking a review of TfL’s financing but Sadiq Khan responded by appointing his own “independent” panel to examine long-term funding. These were my comments on Twitter: “What’s another few billion pounds to keep Sadiq Khan in power? But it would be cheaper to sack him and most of TfL Management”.
Tory Mayoral Candidate Shaun Bailey said this: “Sadiq Khan wants another TfL bailout. He’s blaming coronavirus again. But the virus didn’t cause 4 years of negligence. £5bn lost on Cross-rail delays, £640m on subsidising tourist travel, £56m a year on TfL staff earning £100k+ and Record levels of debt”. That’s a good summary. You can read what we said about the ludicrous finances of TfL in January (i.e. before the epidemic) here: https://tinyurl.com/y3jluw8v But TfL still have the funds to finance road closures in boroughs all over London! Roger Lawson
Cycling and Walking Revolution
The Prime Minister has announced a “£2 billion cycling and walking revolution”. I will comment on some of the implica-tions for London and give my personal comments on the High-way Code changes as the ABD nationally will be formulating a formal response in due course. The £2 billion might sound a lot of money but spread over some years it might not be a great deal. It includes the provision of new “protected” cycle routes. If they were segregated from other road traffic that might make much sense to avoid conflict. Continued on next page.
ABD News
Hammersmith & Fulham Complaints about the road closures in South Fulham have caused the Council to drop them. But they are replaced by a scheme whereby cameras are used to stop vehicles other than those registered in the area from entering. The ABD is opposed to such schemes because it causes problems for visitors and for delivery drivers. It is also admin-istratively complex and under-mines the general principle that all roads should be open to everyone as everyone pays for them. This is what local M.P. Greg Hands had to say about it: “This scheme is clearly designed to be a revenue raiser by Labour run Hammersmith and Fulham Council. On top of the existing million-pound moneybox junction, this scheme will hammer
residents, visitors and essential deliveries hard, in addition to increasing traffic on the already congested Wandsworth Bridge Road. There has been minimal consultation with resi-dents, and Fulham has not reacted well to this money grab by greedy Labour councillors. The Council needs to shelve its hastily conceived scheme and consult and involve residents. Traffic in Fulham is a problem, but this is not the solution.”
TfL Needs Another Bail-Out Transport for London (TfL) is seeking another bail-out in
addition to the £1.6 bil-lion already supplied by the Government due to
much wider geographic area that may simply be impractical to access via public transport in a sensible timeframe.
Highway Code Changes There are some changes being proposed to the Highway Code, to which you can respond in a public consultation, They are not all bad in my opinion, but there are some issues I note: It introduces a “hierarchy of road users”. I always thought all people who use the roads should be treated equally as in essence all people have the same rights and responsibilities in a free society. They should all share the roads irrespective of their chosen transport modes.
They are also proposing to intro-duce specific passing distances for cyclists which will cause unnecessary difficulties on many narrow London roads. More flexible rules should be set rather than fixed limits. They also encourage cyclists to ride in the centre of a lane which will delay or obstruct other traffic and cause needless annoyance; and they encourage cyclists to ride 2-abreast also. They also encourage the use of the “Dutch Reach” when opening a car door. This is really only practical in small vehicles and for those people who can turn their head through 180 degrees – many elderly people cannot. It’s actually safer to look in a door mounted wing mirror when a wider view of traffic approaching from behind can be seen (including cyclists).
In summary, many of the chang-es favour pedestrians and cyclists and might improve their safety, but those for cyclists are often irrational and unnecessary. They will be particularly problem-atic in London where the behav-iour of cyclists is often quite appallingly bad. There is more helpful guidance for cyclists in the new Code, but will they actually read it? They unfortunately have no obligation to do so and many clearly have historically not done so. At least vehicle owners have to pass a test to ensure they know it. For more details, go here: https://tinyurl.com/y4jjc6lv Roger Lawson
ABD News
Cycling and Walking Revolution (Cont.)
But the danger is that it will just mean more cycle lanes taking away road space with fairly disastrous results for traffic congestion as seen in London. Boris Johnson’s press release suggests that getting people to cycle and walk will enable them to lose weight and get fitter there-by generally improving their health. The only problem with this is that, as anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, you have to do an awful lot of exercise to lose much weight. In reality the only way to significant-ly lose weight is to eat fewer calories and drink less alcohol. Exercise can only contribute in a minor way.
Not that I would discourage you from taking it. For the elderly taking up cycling can be positively dangerous. My brother-in-law just fell off a bike in Italy and hurt his shoulder which was already damaged, and he is an experienced cyclist. But if you really want to take up cycling the Government is to provide cycle training, vouchers to fix your old bike, or possibly assistance to buy a new electric one (details not yet clear). The Government is to encourage “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” that might include road closures like we have seen in Lewisham and other London boroughs, much to the disgust of many residents. The result has been more traffic congestion, not less. All this enthusiasm for cycling is of course driven by the fine weather, and the fact that sport-ing facilities such as gyms have been closed.
People have also been avoiding public transport so cycling has been seen to be a viable alterna-tive to avoid the risk of infection. But cyclists are still a minority of traffic on London’s roads (about 2% according to the last reported data from 2018). Will the Govern-ment really turn the UK into the cycling capital of the world? I doubt it. It might be popular for young males, but will it ever be for the elderly and never for the disabled or sick surely (of which there are an enormous number in London – actually 21% of adults). The convenience of a vehicle for transporting people (such as family members) and goods over short and long distances, in all weathers and safely just cannot be beaten. Those who can afford a vehicle and have space to park it usually learn to drive and buy a vehicle sooner or later. It opens up many new leisure and work opportunities and gives you access to a
Contact and Publisher Information This Newsletter is published by the London Region of the Alliance of British (A.B.D.), PO Box 62, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5YB and is distributed free of charge to ABD Members in the London area and to anyone else who has an interest in traffic and transport issues in London. All material contained herein is Copyright of the A.B.D. or of the respective authors and may only be reproduced with permission. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author of the article or that of the Editor which do not necessarily represent the official policies of the A.B.D. The ABD London Region also publishes a blog which can be found here: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/ or you can follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London
A.B.D. London Campaign Director and Editor: Roger Lawson (Tel: 020-8295-0378). Use the ABD-London web site Contact Page here to contact: www.freedomfordrivers.org/Contact.htm . Contact the above for information on the aims and objectives of the A.B.D. or for membership information (membership costs £25.00 per annum). The A.B.D. would be happy to advise or assist anyone who is concerned about any traffic, transport or road safety issues in Lon-don. Complimentary subscriptions to this newsletter are available on request to anyone with an interest in transport matters. Our internet web address is: www.freedomfordrivers.org (or www.abd.org.uk for the national ABD web site). This newsletter is supplied in electronic form which can be displayed and printed via the free Adobe Acrobat Reader. Past copies of our newsletters can be obtained from the www.freedomfordrivers.org web site.
Registering to Receive This Newsletter This newsletter is free of charge and is sent approximately bi-monthly to anyone who cares to request a copy. It is sent via email (as a link to a web page from which you can down-
load it). To register for a free copy simply go to this web page: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/register.htm and fill out the form to be added to our mailing list.
Address Changes Don’t forget to notify the ABD of any change of postal or email addresses. You may otherwise miss out on future copies of this newsletter without noticing that they are no longer being delivered.
About the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) is the leading independent organisation which represents the interests of private motorists in the United Kingdom. We campaign to protect the rights of individual road users and believe that road transport is a beneficial and essential element in the UK transport infrastructure. We oppose excessive taxation of motorists and are against tolls and road usage charging. We also campaign for more enlightened road safety policies. The Alliance is a “not for profit” voluntary organisation which is financially supported primarily by its individual members. More information on the ABD is available from our ABD London region web site at www.freedomfordrivers.org
Support the ABD by Becoming a Member The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) is a national organisation that promotes the interests of road users. Please consider becoming a Member to help us promote your interests.
Go here for membership information: www.freedomfordrivers.org/membership.htm
