Ref. 0002  Published in "Lichfield Mercury" Jan 98
										7-1-98


	Dear Sir,

			Mrs. Brodmann (Letters, 8-1-98) thinks I'm a "selfish motorist" with "no thought for pedestrians" because I object to having the roads cluttered with so-called "traffic calming".

	Perhaps I am selfish and thoughtless. Perhaps it was my selfishness and lack of concern for other road users which led me to train for, and pass, the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Advanced Driving Test in a car and an articulated lorry. Perhaps it was my selfishness which caused me to be the Secretary of the local IAM group for ten years, helping to improve the driving of scores, if not hundreds, of local drivers and thereby making the roads around the Lichfield area a little bit safer. And maybe it was that same selfishness which made me spend fourteen years as a Special Constable, during which time I dealt with many "long-suffering motorists". I have also attended many road accidents, so I don't need lectures from Mr Atkins on the effects moving vehicles can have on the human body. I am also a pedestrian, but I still feel no urge to see the roads obstructed by humps.

	Mr Atkins may have put his finger on the basic problem when he says that "an exceedingly high percentage of the adult population cannot be trusted to travel at reasonable speeds". The important word is "reasonable". A reasonable speed can vary depending on the situation, one minute 40 can be safe, the next 20 may be too fast. Many drivers can't tell the difference, but putting bumps in the road won't improve their perception of hazards. The answer lies in educating and training drivers so they can tell when it's time to rein in the horses. The council should be spending their money (sorry, our money) on encouraging drivers to take further training. I've advocated for a long time that we should gave compulsory re-tests for all drivers every five years, but I don't suppose all the "safe" motorists who never go above 30mph would stand for that.

	The reason for the rash of traffic obstruction measures was explained by another correspondent before Christmas. Apparently the money for these schemes comes from a central government fund, as part of their general anti-car crusade. (Isn't it funny that they're so strapped for cash that they have to cut the benefits for disabled people but can still find money for road worsening schemes?) Councils like nothing better than spending money, and if they can't spend their own they'll spend someone else's. If there's money available from the government they'll apply for it, and if it can only be spent on road humps then they'll build road humps. If there was money available to finance the burning of witches, the streets of Lichfield would be covered in ash. 
		
	 Bad driving is the real danger, not simply some vague notion of "speed". Bad driving can certainly include excess speed for the situation, but speed is only a part of the complex business of driving. Instead of the meaningless slogan "Kill your speed" which is appearing on signs everywhere, the message should be "Improve your driving". 

		Yours Faithfully,





				Chris Lamb.