Transport part 2- Traffic restrictions

Downsides of the conventional approaches to attempting to reduce car use

Many road safety/environmental policies that involve tightening traffic restrictions are designed to make driving more of a chore in the hope of boring and frustrating drivers into using their cars less.  The theory runs that if people think of driving as a chore, then they will cut out their recreational car journeys, and drive only when they feel that they absolutely have to in order to get from A to B.  It is tied in with the belief that all recreational car use as "unnecessary" because "we need to work but we don't need to enjoy ourselves".

As this agenda is very unpopular with most of the general public (as John Prescott and his associates found out the hard way near the end of the 1990s) most pressure groups try to hide this particular agenda and refer to more popular agendas such as creating a more pleasant living environment for people in residential areas.  But the agenda is still very much there, it is just that campaign groups tend to try to disguise it, rather than being up-front about it like the UK Labour government was back in the John Prescott era.

This is also designed to improve safety through restricting everybody to legislate for the reckless minority, a policy which is inefficient, but will most likely succeed in improving safety significantly if taken to enough of an extreme, so it is one of those where we risk sleepwalking into larger-scale restrictions than we originally bargained for.  It is quite popular with road safety groups because as I have noted in other blogs, punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as being "hard", even though it is "hard" primarily against the wrong people.

This approach will cause far greater social costs than "merely" stopping car enthusiasts from enjoying driving.  It will threaten the custom of recreational outlets that depend on customers who travel to them as part of spontaneous car trips, especially in rural areas.  It will threaten various aspects of the car industry, particularly those which relate to making cars good to drive, and these changes risk negatively affecting the economy.  Frustrated and bored drivers may end up more prone to lapses in concentration and road rage incidents, while when traffic is heavily restricted, and the onus is placed more on drivers to allow for inconsiderate behaviour of other road users, this may lead to more risk-taking from cyclists and pedestrians, thereby offsetting safety gains.  With many people still likely to feel that they "have" to drive under these policies, quality of life will reduce if most people find travelling from A to B to be a stressful chore.  I also don't foresee it being particularly effective at reducing congestion and pollution.  In many cases, reduced car use is at least offset by increased congestion per unit amount of car use.

Beneficial use of traffic restrictions

I am convinced, though, that traffic restrictions can be beneficial to society as a whole if used selectively and in the right places for case-specific reasons, rather than as a blanket means of trying to discourage car use.

I often read that a reduction of urban speed limits to 20mph and associated traffic calming will "create a more pleasant living environment and improve quality of life for everyone".  If the speed limit cuts are carried out selectively, i.e. we get a network of residential zones with speed limits of 20mph, and a network of nearby roads with speed limits of 30 or 40mph, then it may well work that way.  In that case, traffic is encouraged to use the relatively unrestricted routes and stay out of the residential zones, and so the residential zones benefit from less traffic generally.  Some types of traffic calming relating to road design, such as cobbled streets, "shared space" (where pedestrians, drivers and cyclists share the same routes) and "filtered permeability" (where we create a wider density of pedestrian/cycle routes than routes for vehicles) can be effective at encouraging drivers to give pedestrians and cyclists higher priority within these zones.

Similar measures are also very useful in town and city centres.  Generally speaking, towns and cities tend to, by default, have large traffic densities near the centre, because that is where most attractions and job locations are held, so it is desirable to keep traffic out of some areas in order to prevent the central parts of towns and cities from becoming a large mass of gridlocked traffic.  For example, going for a leisurely shop in a city centre is generally more attractive to pedestrians if large areas of the shopping area are pedestrianised rather than adjacent to busy roads with queues of cars and buses galore.

Non-beneficial use of traffic restrictions

But, quite often, the agenda is more, by stealth, to try to get speed limits on most, or even all, urban roads reduced to 20mph or less.  Indeed, I quite often see major routes cut to 20mph, with speed bumps at regular intervals, often as a knee-jerk reaction to an incident where someone got killed by a boy racer doing 60mph in a stolen car, while the neighbouring residential zones still have 30mph limits.  In that case, saying that it will "improve quality of life for everyone" is nothing more than lies and propaganda.  If there is not a widespread network of 30mph/40mph zones nearby, there is far less of an incentive for motorists to use those roads instead of taking short-cuts through the 20mph home zones, and so while traffic speeds may reduce, traffic levels will probably not.  Too strong a blanket 20mph policy will also result in increased bus journey times outside of the busiest times of the day.

Plus, in residential areas and even on major routes, authorities are often liberal in their use of speed bumps and chicanes to calm traffic, rather than the cobbled streets/shared space type approaches that are commonly used in town and city centres.  These are not effective at improving local quality of life, as they quite often add to traffic congestion and the increased "stop-start" nature to car journeys that results tends to reduce fuel efficiency and thus increase local pollution levels.  They are often an inconvenience to cyclists as well as car drivers.  Their primary intention is not to improve local quality of life, it is to discourage car use and improve safety by restricting everybody to legislate for the minority.

While I see a case for "shared space" design in designated pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones, in which road traffic levels are typically low, I am against its use outside of those zones.  Its main advantages are that it can improve safety and encourage greater priority for cyclists and pedestrians by creating uncertainty over who has right of way, and thus reducing "risk compensation" (people are more careful because the perceived risk is higher) but the downsides are that the uncertainty can make travelling down those streets more stressful for users of all forms of transport, especially for the blind and partially sighted, and that if applied too widely (as it is effectively a way of restricting car use) they bring the usual disadvantages associated with curbing the beneficial aspects of car use as well as the negative aspects.  On relatively busy and/or high-speed routes the social downsides of "shared space" soon begin to heavily offset the benefits.

The image of children playing out in the streets

The reduction in children playing out in the streets is a problem but it is wrong to blame this squarely on traffic speeds.  Many parents are afraid of their children being mugged by child-molesters nowadays, and are afraid that if their children are allowed to slip through their fingers, they will be done for child neglect.  Back in the 1970s, traffic speeds through urban areas were not generally slower than they are today (indeed, traffic speeds have generally reduced in the past decade thanks to tightening traffic restrictions and enforcement of speed limits).  The key was that there were fewer cars around and there was less paranoia over the possibility of children being run over and/or kidnapped and abused by sexual predators.  I suggest in any case that a selective "home zones" policy would help to promote communal semi-pedestrianised residential areas that would encourage more children to play outside and would be more effective than en-masse traffic calming and 20mph zones.

Country lanes

In the UK, there is a safety problem where accident rates on country lanes have not dropped as significantly as they have in urban areas.  There is therefore a strong temptation for a "stealth" reduction of all 60mph zones from 60mph to 50mph, and then from 50mph to 40mph.  It is not uncommon to see 60mph limits cut to 40mph to legislate for idiots who race down them at 90mph in stolen cars and killed people, or to legislate for those who drive at a safe and legal 50-60mph down them but then continue at 50-60mph through nearby villages.  In some cases we have nearby minor country routes that could far more easily justify a 40mph limit, but are still at 60mph.  In a large majority of such cases, I think stronger enforcement of the existing speed limits would have been more effective at saving lives, and would have avoided penalising innocent people, but again we have the problem that punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as "hard" and failing to do so is often seen as "soft".

Country lanes are the type of roads where people traditionally get the greatest enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner, and are also the lanes that often serve recreational and tourist outlets in rural areas.  I can see a widespread 40mph limit policy heavily eroding the ability for people to enjoy driving on those roads without breaking the law, and with an emphasis on longer journeys that are more of a chore, there is a risk that many motorists would skip those journeys and thus erode the custom that these tourist places need in order to justify continuing as businesses, especially in tough economic times.

I have often heard people say, "Wouldn't we all be happier if people allowed more time for their journeys and weren't always in a rush?"  There is a strong case for that argument in itself, but it is wrong to infer that this scenario will be achieved by lower speed limits.  If anything, where lower speed limits lead to increased journey times, it may well increase the extent to which people, particularly those who lead busy lives, feel pushed for time and thus stressed and in a rush.

Immigration

Introduction

This can be seen as like a follow-up to my article on freedom of speech and expression, since immigration-related issues are a stark example of where speech and expression are frequently abused by bigots, and where as part of clamping down against the bigots, we stifle the ability of responsible people to have a reasoned discussion on the subject.

Problems relating to mixing between natives and immigrants- a UK case study

I have found that in some circles, groups of immigrants in the UK, for whatever reasons, mostly refuse to associate with the British nationals, but it is often taboo to point this out because it is seen as "racist".  This, in turn, actually hinders our efforts to curb racism against said groups because it stops us from having an objective discussion regarding the question, "Why do so many of them keep themselves to themselves?".  Here are just three of many possible reasons for it, none of which have anything to do with skin colour:

• They come from a culture which discourages mixing from people from other cultures.
• Many of them don't speak English very well and so suffer from a language barrier.
• Powerful members of the immigrant group are "bitten" by cases of being screwed over by racist/xenophobic British natives and so tell the rest of the group not to bother mixing with Brits, tarnishing all Brits by association with the racist minority.

In each case, the social norm within the immigrant group becomes, "Don't mix with the British natives", which means that individuals who make an effort to mix with Brits put themselves at risk of being ostracised by their fellow immigrants for being different.  This is a very powerful threat- if you go to a foreign country, you have trouble mixing with the natives, and you are ostracised by the fellow foreigners who come across with you, then you really are on your own.  So, the temptation is just to act "normal" and avoid mixing with the natives.

Unfortunately, some British natives contribute to this problem by, well, being racist.  Sweeping statements like, "This immigrant group doesn't generally mix with the British natives.  Individual X comes from that group.  Therefore, don't associate with X", do a huge disservice to the individuals who make a genuine effort to mix with the British natives, or would like to do so but need help addressing cultural and/or language barriers before they can feel comfortable doing so.  Those of us who try to flag up these issues are then tarnished by association with racists, making it harder for us to give the immigrants the help that they need.

Respect for cultural differences should not take precedence over higher moral considerations

I'm all up for diversity and mixing of different cultures, and preservation of cultural traditions, up to a point, i.e. as long as they can be followed harmlessly and are not imposed on everybody.  For instance, if an immigrant group likes to go to church on a Friday rather than a Sunday, why not?  But if a group has a cultural view that it is OK for husbands to beat up their wives just because their wives were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were unable to defend themselves, then no, I don't think we should "respect" those sort of values.  Saying that cultural rules should always be respected is like saying, "It's normal as far as that culture is concerned, so therefore it's OK".

On the other side of the coin, sometimes we, the country's nationals, can also be guilty of enforcing unreasonable cultural norms (e.g. the unwritten rule that if a man has a close friendship with a child, it probably means he wants to molest the child, in spite of overwhelming evidence on the contrary) or imposing our values on everybody and marginalizing those who deviate (e.g. the traditions saying that you shake with the right hand, and the wife takes her husband's last name, are often enforced in this way).  Thus, it is wrong to blame cultural clashes entirely on immigrants coming in with different cultures- in some cases they might be exposing problems with our cultures- and the problems relating to culture apply regardless of people's ethnic backgrounds.

Issues relating to net immigration/migration

It is very hard to have an objective discussion relating to immigration because a lot of people hold views on the subject that, although they don't like to admit it, are highly racist (e.g. "We don't want those evil foreigners invading our country, we want everybody to be British natives"), and those of us who express reasonable views are frightened of being tarnished by association and marginalized for being "racist".

Immigration, like so many things, is positive in moderation but harmful when it becomes excessive.  The overall economic impacts of net immigration are usually positive, but when population densities become high, there are usually negative social impacts, such as traffic congestion, crowding on public transport, and high demand for local resources which forces everybody to make do with less per head in order to keep the resource use sustainable.  

A significant associated problem, tied in with cultural values and poverty in some developing countries, is that some groups are associated with high birth rates, so even though the net immigration may not be high, population may swell considerably as a result of families having 5-10 children each.  This is, of course, connected to much wider global problems, including world poverty and the issue that population is remaining steady in developed countries while typically rising dramatically in countries that suffer widely from poverty, meaning that most of the world's population now lives in a state of deprivation.  

I see both sides of the issue as I generally don't like areas with a very high population density, and think the UK as a whole is more crowded than I would like, but on the other hand, in recent years, I have had many positive experiences interacting with immigrants from central and eastern parts of Europe.  How do we curb the excesses without significantly impinging on the benefits that we get from immigration, and how much immigration is too much?  Depending on the weights of importance that we apply to various factors, I can see there being literally hundreds of possible "right" answers to this question, so it is an issue that certainly needs to be discussed objectively and seriously.

Unfortunately, because there are so many racists out there, and our standard reaction is to clamp down against everybody to legislate for them, it is often the case that the people who are most able to have a discussion on these topics are the ones with the most racist views.  This is something that, not just in the UK, but in many similar "Western" countries, needs to change if we are to make major inroads against issues like racism, without making everybody frightened to express themselves for fear of being punished by association with racists.

Legislating for idiots

Legislating for idiots- a dangerous modern-day cultural norm

In my opening piece on the fundamentals of freedom and responsibility, I argued that we need rules to strike a balance, to discourage irresponsible behaviour, but to not be so strict that they also discourage some responsible behaviours, resulting in freedoms being under-utilised as per the tragedy of the anticommons.

In the UK a cultural norm has evolved where, when a minority abuse a freedom that many people perceive as non-essential (i.e. not work or family-related) we deem is necessary to legislate for the minority through "collective punishment/punishment by association" policies, curbing the freedoms of everybody.  It has always been an especially common policy in schools, e.g. banning snowball fights because a few idiots might throw snowballs with stones in, and banning physical contact (exempting physical contact with family members because "family is different") because rapists might pretend to be friendly with the ulterior motive of "grooming" victims with the long-term aim of molesting them.

It is favoured because it is perceived as a hard-line way of "doing something" about a safety threat- by punishing innocent people by association with offenders, we show that we are prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of improving safety.  Unfortunately, this is only "hard" against innocent people- it does not necessarily translate to being "hard" against the actual offenders.

The almost imperceptible erosion of freedom AND responsibility

There is quite a famous quote out there, which is attributed to Adolf Hitler in his infamous book Mein Kampf, though due to translation issues, it is unclear whether he ever actually said it.  Regardless, there is a lot of truth in it.

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.

We are in danger of following that route, because a typical process goes:  

A minority abuse freedom A, so we restrict or ban A.  Then, the minority go underground, so we impose more restrictions in relation to A, to try and tackle the underground outlaw cultures that result, and drive their abuse even further underground, and the process repeats.  Then, we find that some of the minority have started abusing B so we ban B, and then they abuse C so we ban C, and so on.

By this process we can end up phasing in unpopular measures that nobody actually wanted, via a series of tiny, almost imperceptible, reductions to responsible people's freedoms.

Another problem with this process is that it erodes the need for people to learn how to be responsible.  If we get used to authorities wrapping us up in cotton wool as part of legislating for individuals' stupidity, and we know that if we take calculated risks in a responsible manner we are likely to be punished by association with those who irresponsibly take unreasonably high risks, why bother being responsible?  We end up moving towards a society where most of us either join forces with the offenders in taking irresponsible risks, or don't bother taking risks at all, and we have too little of that healthy middle ground where society progresses forward through people being prepared to take calculated risks, where it is a case of relatively low risk for relatively high reward.

Objective considerations- the (rare) occasions when it is desirable to legislate for the minority

But there are certain circumstances where it is desirable to legislate for the minority, where it is a case of high risk for low reward, e.g. we don't allow the public to own grenades and the primary reason is that if a minority abuse them, the consequences will most likely be catastrophic, while the beneficial uses of grenades outside of war zones are small.

To accept such policies as a necessary evil in a particular situation, I would need to see evidence that:

(a) they will be significantly more effective at improving safety than a regulation-based policy (i.e. allowing responsible use, but prohibiting misuse and clamping down against misuse),

(b) this will be likely to offset the downside of punishing innocent people by association with offenders and the prohibition of responsible calculated risk-taking,

(c) the reasons for employing the measure are case-specific and are thus unlikely to be extended to argue for a series of prohibitions on related things.

Unfortunately, as a society we tend not to be very objective- we tend to dismiss regulation-based policies because they are not flawless (e.g. you can't always tell if people are breaking the regulations) and because they "compromise on safety" by trying to protect innocent people from being unfairly punished (even if they are actually far more effective at improving safety than blanket prohibition).  The injustice of punishing innocent people is routinely dismissed on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life".

I can understand why we get knee-jerk reactions when our safety, or our loved ones' safety, is put under threat.  There is an automatic desire to "do something" which shows a hard-line approach, to bring the perpetrators of the threat to justice, and if it means punishing thousands of innocent people in the process, so be it.  When people suffer traumatic experiences, often they cannot reasonably be expected to think objectively.  But that doesn't mean that we should carry out policies that reflect these knee-jerk reactions.  By all means let people react that way, but let's ensure that our policies are based on logical thought and weighing up the pros and cons of different options.

When we pander to the "hang 'em and flog 'em" knee-jerk responses, we quite often carry out measures in response to an incident which do little or nothing to reduce the chances of such an incident recurring in the future, but are effective at punishing innocent people by association with offenders.  For example, I am yet to see compelling evidence that banning physical contact between non-family members is particularly effective at protecting children against being molested, or that it is any more effective than increasing the enforcement of previously-existing regulations against touching of a sexual nature.  But it is effective at punishing innocent people by association with offenders, and that's why we accept such measures as a necessary evil (yes, it's because they are effective at punishing innocent people).  This really needs to change.

Transport part 3- Driver testing and training and driving styles

Driving styles

Most of the people who derive enjoyment from the physical process of driving, or being driven, do so at least partly because of the sense of movement, similar to the enjoyment people get from being on a roller-coaster.  Unfortunately, it has become almost taboo to admit to this in the UK because of the stigmas generated by "boy racer" types who insist on driving excessively fast and/or "energetically" and take unacceptably high risks, and that's partly why I am so used to responses like, "Go to a race track."  In reality, in many circumstances, particularly on country lanes with a 50 or 60mph speed limit, it is possible to get a strong sense of movement without having to drive particularly fast or "energetically", and while keeping within the speed limit.

As a non-driver and passenger I also appreciate the variety in driving styles between individuals, i.e. being driven out by motorist A will often be a different experience from being driven out by motorist B.

But there is a strong push from road safety and environmental organisations to try to homogenise driving styles over to the "slow and smooth" extreme, e.g. through a combination of lower speed limits, road design, and "black box" technology which can be used to monitor people's driving styles.  There are various reasons as to why many groups advocate driving smoothly, e.g. reducing wear and tear on car parts, giving a smooth ride for passengers, reducing fuel consumption, and discouraging "boy racer" type tendencies.  But if driving slowly and smoothly is taken to too much of an extreme, you are left with just a limited sense that you are actually moving, and so much of the scope to enjoy the "making progress" aspects of driving/being driven is lost.

Driving "energetically" is not something that you either do or you don't, it is a sliding scale and it is relative.  If enforcement of smooth driving styles becomes increasingly draconian over the next 20 years then there is every chance that driving styles that are considered "smooth" today may be considered "energetic" in 20 years' time.  Ultimately, although these groups don't like to admit it, there is a strongly negative and unpopular agenda behind the push for slow and smooth driving styles- namely, to take the glamour out of driving and instil into everybody that driving should be purely a means of getting from A to B and not a means of "expressing yourself", and to get all "pleasure driving" tarnished by association with the reckless minority.
I have read campaign articles saying that enforcing slow and smooth driving styles very strictly would negate many of the downsides of car use.  Unfortunately, as I established in Part 1 of this series, it would also heavily negate most of the benefits as well.

Problems with the UK's current system of driver testing

The problem with the UK's training/testing system for drivers is not that it is too easy to pass (the UK driving test is one of the most gruelling and difficult to pass in the world), it is that it is too easy for people to become fully licenced drivers before they are ready for it.

Drivers are taught how to drive primarily in order to pass the test, where they must conform strictly to a certain approved style of driving and learn how to drive effectively at slow speeds in and around urban areas, and they do not get a strong grounding in areas such as car control and high-speed driving (most notably on dual carriageways and motorways) and adapting to different driving conditions.  Additions like the hazards perception test have improved matters a little but are still far from ideal.   Once drivers have passed the test, it is common for them to feel that they have to learn to drive all over again.

A common problem, particularly among teenage drivers, is a temptation to rebel against the rules and restrictions that they had to comply with in order to pass the test, such as by trying out motorway driving and long-distance journeys almost immediately, and driving "energetically" (rapid acceleration, going fast around corners etc. to get a greater sense of movement like on a roller-coaster).  Unfortunately, due to their inexperience and lack of understanding of car control, they initially have a poor idea of what is and isn't safe, and learn through trial and error, and the "error" part of this occasionally has tragic consequences.  Some drivers end up developing bad habits as a result of the trial and error because they have nothing to guide them regarding what is and isn't a good habit to get into.

I am used to many people being remarkably defensive of the idea that the rules of the driving test are always right because the rules are the rules, and insisting that anything that deviates from them is a bad habit, despite acknowledging that many of these rules are tailored to the novice driver's lack of experience and therefore may not be as applicable to relatively advanced drivers.  It is an attitude that we must shake off, as there is considerable room for improvement.

Proposed solutions

Thus, I am in favour of a more graduated system that focuses more on training than on error-based testing, to help drivers to achieve a large understanding of car control and hazard perception before they are fully "let loose" on the roads.  

The important point is being able to understand how to read the road correctly and be able to see and appreciate real and potential hazards in front of you, and drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions, ensuring that you are in the right gear and right position to give yourself a very favourable chance of avoiding an accident if unexpected hazards arise.  This is something that comes through experience, but it also helps somewhat if motorists are guided in the right sort of direction to begin with, as if they are not guided, there is a greater risk of them developing bad habits.  There are various aspects of systems like Pass Plus and police driver training, for example, that could be incorporated into a more graduated system.

As part of the graduated system, drivers who have not been fully through the process will have to be restricted in some ways before they get a full licence.  I favour restrictions that are tailored to the individuals' lack of experience and do not impinge heavily upon other road users, rather than "restrict everybody to legislate for the minority" type ones.  Thus, for example, restrictions on engine size and the types of high-speed road driven on may be advisable, prior to candidates learning the skills behind driving on high-speed roads and car control.  But when drivers with incomplete licences are subject to restrictions like lower speed limits and being banned from taking non-family members with them, this has negative impacts upon others.

One upshot of this is that there will be some people who simply don't have the required levels of skill and/or confidence to become fully-licensed drivers.  This is a significant problem in a car-dependent country like the UK where so many of us see the private car as a necessity rather than a luxury.  Thus, this ties in with what I blogged about in Part 1, i.e. we need to become less dependent on the car so that people are not heavily disadvantaged if they don't drive.

"Solutions" that I don't agree with

Instead, many people propose keeping the UK's testing system as it is, and legislating for its flaws by tightening up the restrictions on drivers, especially new drivers who are within two years of passing their driving tests.  Here are three, in particular, that I condemn:

1.  Restrictions on driving out non-family members.  It makes sense that if a driver's parent is present in the car, then the driver is less likely to drive recklessly than if it is a group of friends from school.  But when we get situations where someone is allowed to drive out a sibling or first cousin, but not a close friend, or where driving out a close friend is allowed only if there is a work-related reason for driving (because work is considered essential but recreation isn't) it starts to get unreasonable very quickly, as blood ties and work have very little bearing on the likelihood of someone being incited into driving recklessly.

2.  Lower speed limits for new drivers.  This results in experienced drivers being held up behind inexperienced drivers at 30% below the "standard" speed limit and the inexperienced drivers knowing that they can't speed up or they will soon find themselves up to the 6 penalty points and being forced to go through the whole learning/training/testing process again.

3.  Dumbing road traffic laws down to the lowest common denominator.  The argument here is, if the problem is that the current driver training/testing system doesn't give drivers enough of a grounding in things like car control, we can restrict traffic so that eventually traffic is so heavily restricted that drivers never need to make use of those skills.  This sort of policy would heavily negate many of the advantages that cars bring to society.

There will be situations where the public's lack of driving skill will be exposed, such as when overtaking a tractor on a country lane and finding that a car is coming the other way, thus requiring a burst of speed to complete the overtaking move without being hit full-on.  I suppose we could legislate for those with further draconian restrictions like banning overtaking, and enforcing those with "black boxes" too, but seriously, is this really where we want to be headed?

Freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of speech and expression is under threat due to our tendency to legislate for the minority who abuse it

No, I don't believe in unlimited freedom of speech and expression- it should be bounded by the responsibility to be considerate towards others and not actively encourage actions that impinge on others' freedoms.  I have no problem with society frowning upon expression of views like, "X is inferior because he's black", for example.

The problem is a variation on the "legislating for idiots" problem that I have also blogged about.  When clamping down against unreasonable speech and expression, we tend to feel obliged to show a hard-line approach, which means being willing to tarnish innocent speech and expression by association.  Such an approach can be "justified" on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life", and/or by setting up rules that mandate it and then insisting that "rules are rules".

Example 1:  Clamping down against those who support illegal activities, and in doing so, stifling the ability of others to question the correctness of the law without being jumped on by association.

B.  As a community we do not tolerate views that condone/support copyright infringement.  Anyone who expresses such views will be banned.
A.  Download copyrighted file P from file-sharing site Q.  Here's a link.
B.  Instant ban for A.  That's the sort of thing that we don't allow.
C.  I believe that copyright law X is too restrictive because it prohibits activity Y, and Y probably doesn't erode content creators' sales and benefits the consumer.
B.  Therefore you condone Y, which is a form of copyright infringement, so you will be banned too.

Such "no condoning copyright infringement" policies are common on internet sites to guard against people like A, who could potentially get a site sued by copyright holders for posting links to illegal downloads.  But they are also used against people like C when they try to speak out against what, in their opinion, are unreasonably stringent copyright laws.

Example 2:  We clamp down against dangerous activities and the expression of views that support them.  As a result, those who speak out against the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders end up having their views stigmatised by association with those of offenders.

B.  We do not support reckless driving because of the way that it results in tragic loss of life.
A.  I want to be allowed to drive as fast as I like, because I find it fun.
B.  If you want to drive as fast as you like, go to a race track.
C.  I don't agree with the progressive tightening up of traffic restrictions.  While a minority do drive recklessly for pleasure, and I support clamping down against those people, a lot of people currently get enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner too.  If the restrictions are tightened too much, this will be lost, and I don't support phasing out the recreational side of driving as part of clamping down against the minority who abuse it.
B.  Pleasure should never come before safety.  If you want to enjoy driving, go to a race track.

In effect, C's views are tarnished by association with those of A, since C is not arguing that "boy racer" type behaviour should be allowed, but is rather arguing that the freedoms of responsible law-abiding motorists should not be sacrificed as part of clamping down against it.  I am very used to arguing positions like C and being dismissed simply with the one-liner, "Go to a race track."

Political correctness and avoiding offence

The term "political correctness" is often over-used.  Here, I am thinking mainly of the philosophy where we outlaw language that can cause offence and/or encourage negative stereotyping of vulnerable groups, in the hope that it will make people question widely-accepted stereotypes and lead to a breakdown in values that encourage discrimination.

However, this policy encourages the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders.  In the past, when bigots used words offensively, the general public would often start using them as more general terms of abuse and water them down, forcing the bigots to find other words to use abusively, such as when we cycled through "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" as terms for the mentally handicapped.  But today, when bigots use words offensively, we tend to outlaw them altogether, which results in the bigots getting a much larger say in what words are and aren't acceptable.

Also, we often have too much emphasis on the "avoiding offence" aspect of political correctness, as opposed to the "avoiding inciting negative stereotypes of vulnerable groups".  In some cases it is taboo to express opinions that are perfectly reasonable but might offend certain people, by association with related views that are unreasonable, such as the two examples that I provided above relating to road safety and copyright laws.

Of course, sometimes groups of people develop a hatred of a particular word because it is widely used offensively against them, and so it is only natural that if it is used inoffensively, they may misinterpret it and be highly offended.  People do need to be considerate of this, and take some care with their use of language, especially slang, on the internet and around people that they don't know.  However, when people use a word inconsiderately and without thinking, they should only get punished accordingly (in many cases, a mere warning would be the most appropriate) rather than being punished highly disproportionately by association with those who use the word as part of their oppression of certain vulnerable groups. 

And yes, I am seeing a worrying trend towards organisations setting up rules saying that all usage of a particular word should be punished by association with its most offensive usage, and justifying them on the basis, "The rules are right because the rules say so, and the rules say so, because the rules are right."

Instead, I refer readers back to my article on normative bullying and suggest that tackling this problem is the best way of combating discrimination.

Transport part 1- Reducing dependency on cars

Fundamental problem

In the UK, in common with many other parts of the developed (and, increasingly, developing) world, we are too dependent on cars for transport, resulting in pollution and congestion and non-sustainable consumption of resources.  This raises the question, how do we reduce our dependency on cars and move towards a more balanced and sustainable transport system?  My feelings on this issue are rather at odds with the conventional ways of thinking.

I am in the rare position of having a strong environmental/climate change background, and being a non-driver (unable to drive at all due to visual impairment) and often lamenting the lack of good alternatives in our car-dependent society, but at the same time sharing many tendencies of car enthusiasts (e.g. I often enjoy being taken for a ride as a passenger, and watching Top Gear and Formula One racing), so I think, or at least hope, that I should be good at seeing both sides' points of view on these issues.

The advantages of cars

The main advantages of cars are social and recreational, rather than simply getting from A to B.  They are associated with personal freedom and convenience, and the ability to go where you want, when you want, for both drivers and their passengers.  They are particularly useful for people living in areas with inadequate public transport, most especially rural communities, and for some people with mobility problems.  Spontaneous car trips contribute heavily to tourism and the custom received by recreational outlets, again especially in rural areas.  Many also derive some enjoyment from the physical process of driving and/or being driven as a passenger, making travelling from A to B a source of enjoyment in itself, rather than a chore.  Car enthusiasts are provided with a hobby and Top Gear remains one of the most successful TV programmes in the world.

The process of getting from A to B can, in itself, be achieved more efficiently given a sufficiently reliable public transport system, particularly in urban areas, and by walking and cycling over short distances, so I don't subscribe to the "Cars are useful primarily for getting from A to B" philosophy.

The disadvantages of cars

Well-established disadvantages include the issue that they contribute heavily to fossil fuel consumption and pollution of the environment, increase noise levels, and can potentially be lethal, especially when they get into the wrong hands.  However, the main reason why the disadvantages of cars often outweigh the plus points these days is because we have become over-dependent on them.  Many of us view cars as a necessity rather than as a luxury, and there are many people who get no reward from the physical process of driving, and find it stressful and would much rather not drive, but feel that they have to.  Becoming too dependent on cars has resulted in car use escalating at the expense of alternative methods of transport and has resulted in high levels of traffic congestion, which accentuate many of the disadvantages and negate many of the advantages of the private car.  In the UK, this can partly be blamed on poor planning policies in the 1950s/60s/70s when we closed down many of the railways in preparation for becoming a car-based society.  Those who have disabilities that prevent them from driving legally, or don't have the confidence, are often disadvantaged because of the lack of reliable alternatives to the car in our car-based society.

Biased cost-benefit analysis

Many academic studies look at methods of transport only in terms of the "means to an end" benefits of getting from A to B, and overlook their social and recreational advantages.  Most environmental groups are aware of this and advocate putting greater emphasis on the social and recreational benefits of walking, cycling and taking public transport, and I have seen a few Green Party manifestos talking of "factoring in the 'true' social and environmental costs of driving".  They argue that promoting cycling more will be beneficial to society even if it results in a small increase in fatalities.  Up to this point, I am completely with them.

However, I am used to the same groups of people arguing that the social and recreational benefits of cars and driving should be ignored, or even considered as a negative factor.  This can stem from the idea that if an activity is frowned upon, then it is particularly bad if people are deriving enjoyment from it, or the idea that since we want people to use their cars less, it will complicate our argument if we then factor benefits of cars into consideration.  I recall reading one academic study which misleadingly expressed the social/recreational pros and cons of driving as one motorist's personal benefits versus the cumulative negative impacts of all of the cars on the roads.  It is understandable, but leads to considerable anti-car bias, and thereby, promotes policies that are more anti-car than pro-environment, pro-safety or pro-walking/cycling/public transport.

Meanwhile, the work-related benefits of driving are generally overstated, because of the misconception that everything relating to work is essential, for we all need to work (up to a point).  A significant amount of work-related driving (though not all of it) could easily be avoided at little or no cost to anybody, such as through car-share schemes, public transport and teleworking arranagements.

My recommended approach

I believe that we need to go for much the opposite approach, taking steps to reduce our over-dependency on cars, and pushing us towards a culture where cars are primarily viewed as a luxury, rather than a necessity, with public transport being the default for longer-range "A to B" journeys and walking and cycling for shorter journeys, and cars being primarily used for recreational journeys.  Many German towns and cities have managed to get close to this model, but the key is that it requires an integrated public transport system, and good facilities for walking and cycling, and good advertising to raise public awareness of the facilities.  Some work-related car journeys can be cut by car-sharing, use of minibuses, and teleworking arrangements, and we could also do with transporting a higher percentage of our freight by rail.

Another advantage of making car use more of a luxury and more recreation-based is that traffic congestion will end up playing more of a limiting role- if we use cars too much, congestion increases, making driving less enjoyable, resulting in less car use, and less congestion, and we end up with a self-sustaining equilibrium which prevents our roads from becoming excessively congested.  When we are dependent on cars for transport, this equilibrium is harder to achieve as many people feel that they "have" to keep on driving even when the roads become gridlocked.

There will be cultural barriers to this, and some education and advertising will be needed.  One problem that we will have in the UK is that even if we do achieve an integrated public transport system, it may be difficult to encourage the public to widely use it, because of the negative image that public transport currently suffers from.  Another issue is the lazy tendency of some to drive around the corner to the local shops when they could walk there in just 5-10 minutes- again, addressing this will require a cultural shift, but that cultural shift won't be achieved by clamping down against the recreational side of driving.

Thus, when it comes to the "congestion" side of driving, I think that more use of the "carrot", rather than the "stick", is advisable, as the "sticks" have a habit of particularly hitting the aspects of driving that are the most beneficial to society, while the "carrots" are often more likely to succeed in reducing the negatives.  

This may not be the case with the "pollution" side, however, where we may need more tax-based incentivising (both for drivers and car companies) to provide "carrots" to encourage use of more efficient fuels, while implementing "sticks" to penalise those who produce and drive around in gas-guzzlers.  A significant problem in the UK in recent years has been the move towards diesel rather than unleaded petrol, which has been misleadingly presented as saving a lot more on pollution than it actually does, and as a result traffic pollution levels have not fallen as far as expected.  However, we must still be careful not to implement "sticks" that heavily neutralise many of the benefits that cars provide to society.

"Normative" bullying part 2- Gender and relationships

Gender differences- Nature or nurture?

The simple answer to this question is, "both", but a more challenging question is, how much of the observed differences between males and females is nature, and how much is nurture?  I think the "nurture" component has definitely declined since the 1950s, but it is still there, and I believe that the main problem with it is that it often tends to be enforced through "normative" bullying techniques.

A frequent personal experience of mine is that, culturally, men are expected to be X, and women are expected to be Y, but I tend to be a mix of the two.  I tend to be particularly exasperated by contradictory arguments like the following:

"Like it or not, men and women are different.  There is no peer pressure to conform to gender roles- that has died out since the 1950s- there is only pressure not to conform.  Fundamentally, men are X and women are Y, and if, as a man, you aren't X, then it means you probably have something wrong with you and so should be regarded with suspicion, for a civilised society has to have norms/rules and if you don't play by the rules you should be punished.  Most other men are happy to be X, so why can't you just be X like everybody else?  Vive la difference!"

This argument is extremely contradictory, arguing that there is no peer pressure to conform to gender roles, but then saying that if you don't conform to gender roles, you should be punished for being different because "rules are rules" (if that's not a form of peer pressure to conform, what is?)

Examples of cultural differences

In many developed countries, notably the USA and to a lesser extent the UK, it is normal for men's friendships to be based on shared interests, particularly competitive hobbies, and for women's friendships to be based on emotional bonding.  Men are not expected to bond emotionally with people other than close family and men who hug close friends can be regarded with suspicion, whereas women can hug close friends without any worries.  These gender divisions are harmful for both genders, since they make it difficult to find friends who will provide both shared interests and emotional bonding (male friends tend to provide the former and female friends the latter).  The lack of emotional bonding in men's friendships, in particular, tends to result in them being perceived as short-term and disposable.

For men

The norms relating to "Men don't bond emotionally with friends" have no biological basis.  They stem from the way that close friendships involving men were stigmatized during the Victorian era due to the fear of being accused of being homosexual, as there were strong criminal penalties for homosexual men, as Oscar Wilde found out to his great cost, for example.  The stigmatization of emotional bonding in men's friendships relates to the idea that men are not emotionally sensitive, and if they are, they are unnatural and probably have something wrong with them.  This issue has significantly fuelled the recent paranoia over child-molesters in the UK, where every man who behaves inconsistently with his gender role in the vicinity of a child is suspected of wanting to molest the child.  But it is at odds with biological evidence suggesting that about 15-20% of humans, both male and female, are born "highly sensitive".  

I suggest that this is an example of what I call "normative" bullying.  Men who are more "sensitive" than the expected norm end up feeling compelled to hide their sensitive traits, for fear of being socially rejected for being different, and even suspected of wanting to molest children.  In today's culture of "the minority spoiling it for everybody else", when there is a perceived threat to our safety, we look for innocent people to target by association with the likes of rapists.  Homosexual men traditionally used to be the easiest targets, but now that homophobia is becoming recognised as a significant problem, it is becoming easier to focus on "sensitive" men instead as they are not widely recognised as being vulnerable to discrimination.

For women

"Women don't engage in competitive hobbies/interests" does have a limited biological basis, as women tend to be less aggressive and competitive by nature.  However, much of the gender division is still caused by social conditioning.  From an early age, girls are taught that females "grow out" of competitive activities like computer games (especially violent games), chess, ten pin bowling etc., and that females who persist in doing them are acting unfeminine and childish and stooping to the males' level.  Another, related, problem is the patronising, "macho" type of reaction that females get from some males who are strong at such activities, like, "She can't be as good as us- she's female." or "I'm not playing against her because I couldn't stomach being beaten by a female."

I remember cases from my childhood where people applied the rule, "Boys shouldn't hit girls, but it's OK for girls to hit boys" (which is dubious in itself, for while girls are, on average, physically weaker than boys, the rule doesn't take into account the individual-on-individual variations from the average, or the fact that it is possible, up to a point, for weaker people to inflict significant harm on stronger people) and but then decided that it was OK for boys to hit girls who took part in these competitive activities because "they aren't real girls as they do boys' things rather than girls' things".  An extreme case admittedly, but one that strongly highlights the problem.

So, again, a significant reason why many girls don't engage in these activities is because if they do, they will be socially rejected for being different. This is reflected by the fact that once it becomes relatively "normal" for females to do a traditionally male-dominated activity, we usually get a sharp rise in the number of females who take an interest in it, and by the fact that many girls who take up these activities tend to give them up during their teenage years, which is when peer pressure tends to be at its most rampant.

All of the above is strongly relevant to areas where there is a problem with women being under-represented in the workforce- sometimes the above attitudes are quite prevalent, and tend to be accepted without question, such that people (both male and female) bully women out of wanting to be part of them, without even realising it.

I am not a fan of positive discrimination

I am a believer in equality of opportunity, which is not the same thing as equality of attainment.  There are some areas where biological differences between the sexes will result in there being more men than women (or vice versa) succeeding at a particular activity, e.g. men are at an advantage, on average, in activities that require a lot of physical strength.  And we get variations either side of the mean, so Company A may find that most of the best applicants for a job are male, while Company B might find that most of the best applicants for a similar post are female.

I can see that positive discrimination can go some way towards addressing the problems that I described above.  If women are under-represented within a group, and we push to get more women involved, then it will become perceived as relatively "normal" for women to take part, and therefore, less likely that they will be socially rejected for being different, and thus discouraged.  

However, positive discrimination can result in the jobs not going to the best candidates, with inferior candidates getting priority because of, say, their gender and/or skin colour.  It can also result in us unrealistically trying to aim for a 50-50 gender distribution in an organisation, where there may well be a genetic difference that, if we left "nurture" out of the equation, would make it more like 70-30.  These issues put a lot of people off from supporting what is a very important cause.

Once again, the problem that we're dealing with here is normative enforcement of "rules", i.e. the "If it's normal, it's OK, and if it's different, it's not OK" mentality.  I feel that it would be most beneficial to try to tackle this directly.  People should be punished for doing things that are likely to be detrimental, not purely for being different.