Links with the

icon can only be viewed by Members.

CAB Feedback

Each week we shall publish a selection of the feedback received into the CAB Feedback mailbox. This page will be updated throughout the week so keep checking back to find out what other members are saying!

All contributors shall of course remain anonymous, and you can always use e-Discussion to air your views more publicly!

Poll Question: Do you think climate and economic changes will mean more manufacturing returning to the UK?

Once you've lost business to the extent that the UK has, confidence has gone and without major industrial re-investment, which we cannot afford, it won't come back. We are just a bigger risk than most other economies.

"Always" is a long time. Eventually all cheap labour markets will have been exploited and become organised, as Marx predicted in "Theories of Surpus Value". Then, competetive advantage will depend on indigenous skills and locational advantage in relation to raw materials or natural tarnsport hubs. Mrs T thought that the free market had all the answers, hmmm, so why is there a need for Local Authorities? The tendering process she introduced suppresses developments in new areas as often front edge firms are undercut by those with less knowledge offering an inferior product. Tendering is OK in the procurement of fully develloped products or services. If all the world had western living standards we would already need the resources of two and a half Earths. So maybe long term there will be a return to "make do and mend" rather than "throw away and spend." There's supposed to be still enough coal for 300 years consumption beneath the Uk landscape. Yes Bill, long termism will rule, one day!

British manufacturing was let down by 3 things. Firstly, short-sightedness by management, who saw no need to modernise equipment or practices, letting countries like Germany overtake us. Secondly, a union structure dedicated to saving jobs, even if it killed the company. an attitude still existing today, as witness the BA strike action. Thirdly, a snobbish attitude amongst government of all political hues that manual labour is somehow second rate employment. Look at Tony Blair's moronic idea that getting half the country's 18 year olds into higher education would be of benefit. The result is we now have to import plumbers, plasterers etc from Eastern Europe, but can't move for media studies graduates.

We still manufacture in the UK - albeit not many of the big, visible, popular, "traditional" manufactures such as brown / white goods, hence the view that we don't manufacture anything. Manufacture of those products has moved elsewhere for a variety of reasons - both reasons of attraction (eg low labour / land costs) that pull manufacturing away from the UK, and reasons of quality / performance that pushed manufacturing away. These factors change over time, and everything goes in cycles - although those cycles can be difficult to perceive because they can last years / decades. Over time, some of this "volume" manufacture will return because the factors that caused it to depart have turned around.

British Industry was let down after two world wars by poor management, bad industrial relations and short term accountancy. One might add also the heavy hand of politicians as a downer. Investment in professional management education, investment in product development/research and investment in the work force in a climate of long term strategic planning are essentials for any county's economic development of manufacturing industry. Politicians have to understand their role is to develop a long term stable condition despite the very short life time of individuals in political posts. If these criteria are met with confidence and commitment UK industry will flourish what ever the climate change in the future.

As a consultant, routinely going in and out of businesses and looking at their supply chain strategic and operational decision-making processes, my conclusion is that, often, businesses choose to exploit low-cost economies almost exclusively at their commercial / procurement level, detached from the risk considerations that fall to the supply chain operations organisation to mitigate. There is nothing wrong with ‘fare trade' global supply chains - in fact, some manufacturers have to source from overseas in order to get the component quality they require, but where the sourcing strategy is truly integrated, a much better risk profile is invariably inherent.

I can't agree with God Bless Maggie or for that matter Saint Blair. Both let UK Manufacturing down very badly by letting UKPLC Export our Industries lock stock and barrel overseas. It now appears as if we should be seeking 3rd World Aid as China has hurtled past us and India is due to do the same any day soon (and there is a queue of others) while we continue to tumble down the Manufacturing scale.

Range Rover are selling unprecedented volumes of cars all built in Birmingham. If you get the quality right, and the production techniques then yes we can compete. But simple metal bashing no gone forever but is that a bad thing! Mines, forges, furnaces, would you want tpo work in one especially for low wages! God Bless Maggie, Every mom in a former mining town should thank her! Imagine one of your kidz having to work down there!!

Poll Question: The default retirement age was scrapped today. Is this a good thing?

In my own team we are all around the same age and none of us have plans to move on before we reach retirement age. This means that the department will lose 5 experienced members of staff within 2 or 3 years and as other colleagues take redundancy/early retirement packages and posts are not filled, there is no "new blood" coming through the ranks for us to pass our experience on to. We are about to take on a Modern Apprentice for 1 year but there will probably be no post for him/her at the end of his apprenticeship unless one of us wins the lottery! If I'm fit enough to keep working I will work past 65 but I'd like to think that by that time my debts will be paid off (ha ha wishful thinking) and I won't need a full-time wage. Maybe one of Gerry's part-time trainer posts would be an option. Then again, six months a year in the sun sounds better!

I agree with a lot of the comments already made. Especially that of loss of experience and skill and the pressures of individuals needing to continue working into later life, but you have to be realistic about this and consider the types of occupation that could allow the older individuals to continue to contribute effectively. Is a 65 yr old brick layer going to be as efficient as one of 25 yrs old? More skilled - possibly, but more efficient - I'm not so sure. Can someone in their mid-60's compete with someone in their mid-20's? There ae some professions where this is undoubtedly true, Doctors is possibly one that comes to mind. There are even aspects of our own industry where this could be true i.e. Managerial and administrative positions along with some others. Having just lost a valued team memeber to retirement I know this for a fact. Individuals may choose to continue working into later life but the presure on companies to seek younger, more dynamic individuals to drive the company forward is only going to increase. One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is "Who would we employ?" For every position available would you choose age and experience or youth and potential? A tough choice for some positions but not for others and by doing this would we be shifting the unemployed from the younger to the older generations. In my opinion retirement at 65 should be optional. If retirement age continues to be pushed out we could end up swapping pension payments for unemployment benefits

I agree with comments cast that experience cannot be taken lightly; additionally I think that 65 is far too young, more and more of us are having families later in life and the children need to be financially supported through university etc. Personally I think that I will be working until I keel over!

I have known some excellent drivers with 40 years behind them being forced to retire at 65 even though tey do pass all medical requirements to keep thir licences. A driver who passes his test today would never be able to replace these vastly qualified people. So, now at 65 you can if you wish continue in your career so long as you pass the HGV/LGV medical that must be taken every 5 years after the age of 45 to keep your licences. This is got to be good news to those who fear the next 20 years feeling bored and useless.

This is a positve move as it reflects the ongoing age profile of the population in general and allows greater flexibillity for employees and businesses alike.

Some people are still capable and willing to work after their retirement age and we should not force them to retire. Others can't wait to retire as they have other plans for their twilight years. Retirement should be optional above a pre-determined age, however, a person should not be able to say on Monday that they want to retire on Friday. A reasonable notice period needs to be agreed to allow employers to train a replacement (there will no doubt be many views as to how long this should be).

We lose and therefore waste so much irreplaceable experience by staff leaving at 60/65 when we could offer part-time trainer positions. Equally there are young people out there who do desparately want work. Bring back apprenticeship, use the experience of older workers to train and kill two birds with one stone. If only we were allowed to use proper commonsense and not have to follow laws set by people who have no idea about how the real world operates things would be so much easier for employers. Once your conditions are built into your contract of employment it is then up to the person to decide when they join.

If the person is performing well enough to meet business requirements, then age should not be an issue.

In my experience it is the younger team members who are more likely to make mistakes, or not make any decsision at all. All employees should be judged on merit, regardless of age or any other discrimination including gender. If you are capable and willing, why should you be forced to retire to make way for the less capable, this is not fair on the company or individual. As Spock said "Live long and prosper"!

This will only be a good thing if they allow companies to police their staff rules properly, as some older team members may be prone to making errors as they get older, but it at least gives the employer and employee the abilty to fulfil their wishes.

Poll Question: The European Commission says conventionally fuelled cars should be banned from cities by 2050. Do you agree?

This proposal, similar to most other proposals regarding passenger transport,fails to acknowledge that the old industrialised parts of the UK are populated with job seekers who have had to look outside of their own communities where traditional large employers used to exist to secure employment, in many cases, involving unsociable hours. This has only been made possible by the use of their own transport, usually where no public transport alternative exists. Is it not time that we tried to adress these issues which probably effect the majority of most employees in the provinces without continually punishing them for not using public transport and by assuming that they have limitless resources to adopt whatever form of transport that happens to be flavour of the month. Let us get real about this.

I thought for a second you were asking us to vote on whether we agree with the EU!!! Then I realise... ExpandI thought for a second you were asking us to vote on whether we agree with the EU!!! Then I realised we haven't had a 100% result yet. I know, let's ban all EU registered vehicles from our cities with immediate effect.

I would not wish to be so flippant as to accuse the European Commission of "saussage renaming", nevertheless, I think the aspiration is somewhat Utopian in the timeframe proposed. Also, to put forward such a radical suggestion demands a credible alternative to be provided, and I simply do not think that that is within the European Commission's gift. Regrettably, off the wall aspirations of this order can lead to the view that the COmmission is somewhat out of touch with reality. It would have been far better, had the proposal centered on a committment to support studies and research into the development of a viable alternative to fossil fuels by 2050, which would automatically have the desired effect and much more besides.

Will there be any conventional engines by 2050, and will there be an EU to enforce such legislation ?.

Whilst a target is laudible in this case, it must be acheivable within some sort of transition plan from where we are now to where we need to be. If this target has such a plan - that is realistic - then I would of course be in favour of it - who wouldn't? My fear is though that this is nothing more than a random target, picked to please a certain quarter, with no real meat behind how to get there. What's wrong with a super fuel efficient engine burning vegetable oil then?

RE has the key issue. More electric traction=more coal fired electricity = more pollution, at least unitl we get worldwide capature ansd storeage of carbon and other airborne pollutants. The practicality of doing this by 2050 is not established. At this point in time there is a case for much more caution over any increase in electric traction.

Perhaps it should say that the USE of conventionally fuelled cars should be banned - in that way, if (as I believe will be the case) car and commercial vehicle design develops strongly in the hybrid direction, the requirement could be that electric mode is always used within defined areas: for example, all 20/30mph zones.

There is an ENORMOUS challenge that the EU (and we in the UK) seem to be ignoring. If we substantially increase the number of electric powered cars that need charging then how will our power generating and distribution systems cope? A few weeks ago people might have said "nuclear" but perhaps that's not such a good idea!

Targets are OK if there mechanisms/rules/models for linking where you are now to where you want to be, plainly not the case with these EC transport goals. You have to treat them, therefore, with healthy scepticism. It is desirable from the viewpoint of air pollution to have less dependence in cities on conventionally fuelled vehicles but, unless battery densities and electric vehicle range are significantly improved and/or lifestyles change radically, conventionally fuelled vehicles will be required for longer (non-urban) journeys. A requirement for two-car ownership may be out of the economic reach of a significant proportion of the population. This example illustrates the many imponderables in these EC transport scenarios and the huge difficulties in hypothesising them. This is not to say that it is all a waste of time, only that we should be very humble in taking on this type of work. Definition of the constraints on achieving the scenarios is probably of more value than the scenarios themselves.

It's not the car that's the problem it's the internal combustion engine with it's (very) poor effici... ExpandIt's not the car that's the problem it's the internal combustion engine with it's (very) poor efficiency. I had a milkround 35 years ago and most of the vans in the fleet were electric.!! They weren't fast but didn't need to be... and the argument about range is just a red herring.

Hopefully, a more environmentally friendly option will be availble at affordable price.

Poll Question: Will the Japanese tsunami impact on your organisation?

Firstly, we stand in full sympathy with the victims now and in the repercussions they will have to face. Secondly, our organisations will be effected since we purchase several electronic components that are sourced from Japan.

EVF

Japan is such a global player it will effect us all in some way or other whether we like it or not.

None of these responses are appropropriate for me. I am working with an international expert group which is carrying out research on catastrophe prevention. Anyonw who is interested in the work which has been carried out in Japan on the lamentable state of regulation on earthquake design, tsunami effects and nuclear safety could do no better than begin with Professor Ishibashi's courageous work as summarised at: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ishibashi-Katsuhiko/2495

First of all, huge sympathy towards the Japanese nation. An event of this magnitude borne by such an industrialised nation will have repurcussions for years to come. Is my organisation affected? On the face of it, no - but never say never. I'm sure the business ripple effects will be felt in the coming months in areas no-one could foresee.

Poll Question: So, should the Chancellor drop the increase in fuel duty planned for April?

Oh dear why is it that the Logistics industry always crys foul when they are asked to actually reflect the costs of doing business in their rates. It is fact that the Road Logistics sector do not contribute a fair share of the true costs of their operations, but their business model does reflect this as pricing is in fact lower than it should be across the sector, so why dont they sort this out rather than harping on about fuel. Yes it would be good to see all fuel tax revenue go to roads but we live in a democracy. As far as car users are concerned perhaps there will be more consideration to the actual cost of using the car which will make people think more about public transport or not doing wasted journeys. Unfortunately it is like smokers who spend millions killing their selves and then bemone being taxed for their pleasure whilst we non smokers pay to repair their health. A modern society must be paid for so those who use most the resources should not be suprised that tax rises to pay for it.

AJCB

Yes...and isn't it about time we had some proper legistration to control the amounts paid at pumps? Of course we need to raise revenue from fuel but not always at the expense of the logistics provider.

I think the duty /tax on Fuel in the UK is too high as it is so a reduction would be welcome.!!

This sure is an emotive subject. FB, in defence of the CILT, the Logistics & Supply Chain community in general are highly innovative and heavily focussed on sustainability. It's unacceptable in any transport planning not to optimise efficiency. There really is no point in moaning about rising motor fuel cost when soon enough there won't be any. I'd like to know what the alternatives are, because your sliced loaf isn't going to be delivered by bike like in the Hovis adds any time soon. I wish I could use public transport. I live in a large town and work in another large town. If there was a bus, I'd take it believe me.

We should be pricing fuel in relation to the full cost of its production and consumption. So not only should this rise go ahead but future rises should be planned too. Only today the BBC website had a headline article about the impact of high fuel prices on reducing private car use. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12664047. How is this a bad thing? And as an aside, the fact that this poll is currently showing 3/4 in favour of lower fuel prices I think just goes to show how out-of-kilter CILT membership is in favour of logistics rather than sustainable transport planning.

Well, it's the wrong question and the outcome is so predictable. Of course everyone is going to protest about increasing fuel costs, but a penny or two on a litre no longer sounds that much and in the grand scheme of things it's a bit like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. The rate of increase more attributable to suppliers covertly ramping up prices because they can and hoping that Joe public will blame it on Duty, and of course the rising cost of crude which if you look at the long term, we ain't seen nothing. Crude prices are generally predicted to rise to $200/barrel by the end of 2012/13. The kind of news you could expect after the London Olympics closing ceremony. Another 5 years after that $350/barrel is likely. Putting a penny or two on a litre of gas/diesel is unlikely to have the effect of reducing dependancy or pulling cars of the road in favour of taking public transport that doesn't exist. It's like doubling the price of a gram of heroin, thinking that's going to cure drug addiction and all addicts will go get themselves a job. If we're not in a world of hurt now, we will be soon. Successive goverments have failed to invest in a sustainable future (you can take this all the way back to Beeching axing the railways in the '60's) and that legacy leaves us with broken/congested roads, £6+/Gallon for motor fuel, little public transport to speak of outside the congested metropolis'. The answer is for us all to buy electric vehicles and plug them in to the coal powered grid, being that nuclear power stations won't exist pretty soon and wind power is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Yes, knocking a penny of a litre is going to keep our industry on the road, sure enough.

Agree totally with DW - that it 'Should continue to increase. Pricing reflects the scarce resource and environmental externalities. High prices will promote the use of more sustainable alternatives.' The fact is that far too many non-essential journeys are being made by people for whom alternatives exist, especially in London and the South East. If price rationing doesn't work, sooner or later there will be real rationing.

Work this one out. A pint of beer costs £3.20/pint OR £25.60/gallon. A litre of petrol costs £1.40/litre OR £6.23/gallon.(78p/pint) Beer is approx 94.5% water. Fully recyclable, environmentally friendly apart from percieved health problems. Made from sustainable local grown crops and natural resourses. The UK brewing industry does not have to be linked to multi-nationals with the associated risk of reduced product quality and price setting. Petrol is produced from crude oil which is an unsustainable resourse that is extracted from the earth. The crude oil then goes through costly and complex chemical processes before becoming petrol. These processes produce toxins, plus many other environmental hazards and polution. Petrol is also transported across the world's oceans in oil fuelled gigantic oil tankers, and then in road tankers to the distribution points and fuel outlets, thus causing more polution. More importantly, the price is governed by international cartels. So, why isn't beer £6.23/gallon, or 78p/pint? I am a CAMRA member, and not advocating putting up the price of beer. I am just highlighting how we are being put over the proverbial 'barrel'! We all know that both products can be supplied at 'the pumps' at considerably lower prices, so I'm sure you will agree with me - let's do something about it! I am!

The "leaders" of the country should be inspiring business by cutting costs and leading the way forward instead they choose to continually hinder the U.K. economy. They are still reeling from their moats and other such claims that the tax payers footed the bill for the least they can do is to take a wage cut like most of the rest of us and reduce the business expenses like the rest of us and inspire growth by actually reducing the fuel duty. With the imminent soaring price rise on fuel in general due to issues in the Middle East and the ousting of dictatorships "take head Mr President" the least the "leaders" of the U.K. could do is to freeze the price, if they were worth their salt they actually reduce the cost on fuel.

Fuel duty should be reduced and a stabiliser built in to avoid the massive increses in price at the pumps. The rise in prices does not stop at the petrol station as that has to be passed on to customers in any business where transport is involved. Finally urgent research and development needs to be concluded on alternative fuels duel to the over reliance on fossil fuels whos production and release on to the markets is tightly controlled to keep prices artificially high.

The only way to stimulate and excite the market is by reducing costs and increasing the market affordability and demand. With VAT increase and then fuel duty on fuel along with a reduction in road spending (which is very poor/ neglected at the peak). I beleive the balance is askew. Banks are making buckets of cash, which were bailed out while other social aspects fo the goverments responsibilities have been reduced/ and or sacked off. Not all fuel is used for the sales reps vehcile on a company fuel card. What about rural buses during the day for OAPs and school children or even when they are been transported in the family car, it becomes so expensive and an easy target, quiet justified for cutting.

FLS

I agree with Richard that the money is not a bonus - it contributes to the overall tax revenue received. I do though believe the motorist is seen as a 'cash cow' that the Government thinks they can continue to milk. Much easier than making difficult project funding decisions, or looking for efficiency savings isn't it!

Will objectors stop talking as if the money from fuel tax goes into the Chancellor's pocket! It's money that pays for services, and if it's not raised through fuel tax it will have to be raised some other way, or the services will have to be cut more, or the deficit reduced more slowly. And since the road lobby is fond of telling us that almost everyone uses cars, it's equitable as well - falling most heavily on those who use most resources.

Should continue to increase. Pricing reflects the scarce resource and environmental externalities. High prices will promote the use of more sustainable alternatives.

Should actually reduce it - he's coining it in from motorists and transportation - literally!

RJS

Poll Question: Should women pay the same car insurance costs as men?Its not whether men and women should pay the same price for insurance its why should all those who are not having accidents or making claims have to subsidise those who are. Insurance costs should be equal regardless of sex.

Insurance ought to be based on an actuarial calculation of risk. Discrimination means being discriminating which uses evidence. We have come to think that discrimination equals bigotry, which is nonsense. Should my holday insurance be the same as that of someone aged 50, or 30, when at 70 I'm more likely to need medical treatment?

DS-D

If you want equality I can think of a lot more ways of doing it as well

Another example of EU going PC mad. The cost of insurance cover is and should be related to the risk of the driver and their driving and accident record. If the insurance company is not allowed to use realistic data then they will err on the side of caution and charge more to c over themselves against the risk. If the gender of the driver is a measured part of the risk data and therefore a factor then allow the insurance companies to use it. To suggest otherwise is perhaps ignoring reality and living an a uptioian dream world.

Insurance is based on the assessment of risk, not the equality of the sexes. This is just another piece of EU lunacy that is gradually taking over this country

The only justification I can see here is the allusion that women dirve safer than men. However, I do not have the statistics on the above statement. If not I donot see why women should pay less insurance for cars.

Insurance is all about the assessment of risk. It has nothing to do with gender per se. Over time insurance assessors and statisticians build a body of knowledge and experience which enables them to refine their policies and effect business which is seen to be fair to both parties to the contract. Gender as such does not come into it. It so happens that the current body of evidence in the UK indicates that certain drivers as a group are a bigger risk than average. A politician is a self promoting opportunist with the gift of the gab. I cannot see a link between politicians, equality of individuals, and risk assessors except in the muddled confusion of Brussels. Surely this new fiasco from the EU is in itself discriminatory against the individual what ever the gender.

Laws and judgements on any form of discrimination supress our freedom and should be abolished in all spheres of life . To relate insurance premiums to any type of political fad is ridiculous. The cost of insurance is made up of 2 components:- 1). The overhead which is made up of administration, financial costs, marketing and claims relating to false claims, and claim payouts not for uninsured drivers . 2) Legitimate payouts for claims relating to an insured driver. Item 1) is probably the larger part of the total cost for a particular company and should be spread uniformly between all drivers insured with the company. The Item 2) contribution for an individual insured driver should be based on the individuals actuarial risk factors which should determine the proportion of the projected claim pool for the current year, that the individual should pay. It is really quite straight forward.

Insurance companies tell us that premiums are rising to cover the increasing number of uninsured drivers on the road while simultaneously quoting the average 17-year old male driver £3,500 for this obligatory requirement. Is it any wonder that there are so many uninsured drivers? And how can we tell our young men, living in rural locations, driving cheap little cars, and fortunate enough to have a job paying minimum wage, that it is fair for them to pay these ridiculous premiums (typically over £290 per month before interest) just because of their gender? This isn't an issue of male virus female; this is a clever bit of marketing by big fat insurance companies creating competition between the sexes in a skill where no such competition exists.

Personally I think the insurance companies use all sorts of spurious value judgements to jack up insurance rates - gender, occupation, postcode etc. I welcome the move to gender equality: as long as you're a safe driver, then why should you pay more/less because of your gender. If you take risks and have accidents, then you deserve to pay more, whether you're male or female. One can accept that more young male than young female drivers are prepared to take risks but it is unfair that safe male drivers with clean records should have to pay more than females.

The argument that men are worse drivers than women does not stand up to the experiences of anyone that spends any length of time on UK roads; women can be as aggressive, ill-mannered and dangerous as men. A fair assessment of risk would - as in every other business function - be based on proper contributory factors related to ability. Imagine if, instead of gender, insurance companies used the ratio of claims by race, colour, or sexuality, would we be as comfortable with that system?

Payment of car insurance costs should be same for both sex, 1- due to gender balance 2- the vehicle movement on roads, wear and tear, consumption etc bear same effcet and not the person using the car. 3- manufacturers do not differentiate their production base on gender. Of late, women use big cars and what men can do women are capable too.

KB-S

I cannot agree with the decision to change the law so that women have to pay more. It is another decision made by people that appear to live in a world of their own unconnected with reality. I used to think that human rights were a good thing, but such decisions make me wonder if it is all getting completely out out hand.

I think the equality of right should play a role in this decision.There should be no favoritism.What ever insurance cost placed on men should be done the same way to the women.

This decision was really unfair as the only distinction is the numbers.

OEU

Not sure that statistically some of these arguments stand the test or that the female of the species are better drivers just that they are fewer in number. I can agree with Lynn Mentiply that costs will undoubtedly rise for female drivers rather than fall for males. Insurance should be based on merit and risk; gender, age, driving experience, number of accidents or lack of them, type of car driven, mileage, colour, garaged, alarmed/immobilised etc - all statistically calculable to increase/decrease risk. I would like to see a tougher driving test introduced with greater emphasis on training to drive rather than teachingto drive including driving at night, skid prevention and motorway driving. Insurance companies should also offer greater discounts for those engaging in advanced driver training such as ROSPA/IAM which are derisory at the moment and offered sporadically across insurance companies. Lets aim to reduce accidents by improving driving standards not legislate for increased costs. There are other steps that can be taken to decrease car insurance namely insurance fraud thereby reducing the risk to lawful motorists by uninsured drivers such as ANPR cameras at traffic lights, filling stations, motorway service areas and other key locations all linked to the police national computer and regional traffic HQs. Lets get these uninsured drivers off the road. Does this decision mean that female HGV/PSV drivers, airline pilots, ships captains and the myrriad other positions held by women also face increased insurance premiums which will ultimately be paid for by the consumer. Once again Europe dictating to the UK for whose benefit certainly not the motorist.

Premiums should be based purely on risk assessment of the individual. Should have nothing to do with the generality of gender or inane comments such as "Have you seen the way 17 year old lads drive their Saxos".

Sexual Discrimination law is used against men all the time. I see no reason why it should not be used against women too. We are after all, all equal... If insurance was higher for young black men as opposed to young white men would you have the same opinion? Would you not class this as discrimination? Whether Black or White, young or old, male of female, there should be no basis for discrimination, with exception to historical record for individual past performance.

Even as a bloke, I must disagree with this ruling. If statistically, young men are more prone to accidents than women, why is this classed as sexual discrimination? Surely this is just another weighting factor being applied to the policy. If I work in the entertainment business (I don't), why should my policy be higher than a Civil Servant (guilty). Is this not discriminating against my profession? I won't even mention age .... I see no difference - just the application of hard stats to reached an informed decision. No discrimination, sexual or otherwise.

of course women should have cheaper insurance than men.They are much more carefull than men and when ythey do have shunts they are generally low speed ones. In my experience you see ten no twenty times more examples of men driving badly compared to women.

Each and everyone is equal. If each person starts at the same starting point and they have a claim then their insurance goes up. Why penalise Male drivers that do drive responsibly. The case that male drivers have more accidents, well there are significant more numbers of male drivers on the road so that could have an effect. I must admit from what I have wittnessed recently over the past few years is speeding female drivers on motorways tailgating at silly speeds in small pocket cars, applying make-up and brushing thier hair. I am pleased guys generally don't wear make-up then there would be trouble.

DGS

This EU decision is based on gender alone, not ability or skills. Again, a touch of EU madness imposing decisions with no thought. Women's car insurance will go up - very, very unlikely men's will come down. The common man - oops sorry, the common woman, in the street will lose out as it is the insurance companies that will profit. Insurance should be based on merit and risk for each individual, and that way women will still pay less then men. After all it is proven, women generally pose less risk then men.

The only reason Women have it cheaper is because statisticlly there are more male drivers on the roads. Women are still as likely to have an accident. Insurers use the fact there are more male drivers on the road to their advantage when the odds of having an accident are the same for men and women. A car theif isn't going to steel a car just because it belongs to a man either!!

Poll Question: Are the police right to fine Michael Thompson for warning other drivers of a speed gun?

For years, police, councils and government have told us that speed cameras are about changing behaviour not raising money. If the driver who flashed his lights produced the change of behaviour then how is that bad? If he didn't the consequence would have been more people braking the law. So we now prosecute someone for reducing the amount of law-breaking? This is a flagrant case of the authorities objecting because their revenue earning opportunity is being reduced. How stupid do they think we are? There are a few thousand policemen in the UK and 60 million residents, the rule of law survives because of public consent. When we have law enforcement officers treating the public with such contempt we jeopardise the continuation of public support, in my opinion a much greater risk to the public than a driver flashing other drivers to tell them of a camera trap.

As RB has noted, flashing headlights are not part of road traffic law and therefore have no official meaning. The guidance is that they alert other road users of your approach. Unless it can be established that by flashing their lights a driver was directly endangering road safety (e.g. by distracting or dazzling another driver) how can they be prosecuted? The verdict is clearly a nonsense and Mr Thompson should appeal. Speed cameras are useless at countering the main menace on our roads - namely tailgating. Which reminds me, P, even though the driver in front of you stopped unexpectedly, if you hit her it was your fault because you didn't leave sufficient braking distance.

Are the police going to prosecute all manufacturers and distributors of speed trap warning devices - regardless of whether such devices should be allowed and are legal or not?

Imagine these scenarios; 1)Michael was driving through a 30 mph area and he thought a car coming in the opposite was going too fast and so he flashed them to slow down (no speed guns or cameras involved). 2) Michael is driving along a country road. There are horse riders coming in the opposite direction. Shortly he rounds a bend and flashes to a car coming in the opposite direction to warn them of the danger ahead. Substitute scenario 2 for broken down car, cyclists or any other number of every day real scenarios.

This prosecution was wrong in my opinion. As another commenter says, there are warning signs before fixed cameras so how was this persons actions any different. I recently saw two Police officers operating a speed gun whilst hiding behind a parked HGV lorry in a dark lay-by. Surely, a better speeding deterrent would be a highly visible presence.

I agree the law is the law. If everyone follows rule and regulation why both on the speed camera. Technically the police is right to take action on Mr. Thompson. His intention maybe good to warn others but this may also leads to a serious accident if the approaching car is unaware and is driving at high speed.

I agree with both statements: the law is the law, and also, this is craziness. Technically, the police were right to prosecute Michael Thompson. But on balance, I have voted NO. When I'm a passenger in a car, if I see a speed camera, I generally point it out to the driver in order to get them to slow down. Should I be prosecuted too?

I thought the high way code was an approved code of practice, that can be used in a court of law. I was also under the impression it states that you should flash your lights to warn other road users of your vehicle approaching in order to prevent them pulling out causing an accident. So what is the difference between that practice and what Michael did, he honestly thought he was doing a good deed that may prevent an accident from occurring.

Mr Thompson's efforts would surely have led to drivers slowing down, the very thing surely the public authorities would want people to do, irrespective of passing a speed camera. I have no problem with speed cameras (which are already painted yellow so that motorists can see them!), but this prosecution is small-minded and just makes an ass of the law.

The police were right to prosecute as he could have been charged with perverting the course of justice however i can accept what he said as last year a driver in front of me panicked jammed on her brakes on a dual carriage way just as it ended and caused an accident but she was not held to account as i hit her in the rear even after she admitted it was her fault

It has always been a tradition for us lorry drivers of old to be 'gentlemanly' and warn of any thing that may be relevant to our livelihoods. We are in fact doing the country a favour because by hopefully slowing traffic down, we help prevent a sudden braking incident. I have always warned oncoming lorries and will continue to do so.

The threat of speed cameras (I thought) is to reduce vehicle speed and not generate funds for the government. Therefore if Mr Thompson's actions caused vehicles to reduce their speed, he carried out the same function. So what is the problem here? What is the actual conviction? Ruddy madness if you ask me. Leave the man alone ...

Michael Thompson's action may be debateable, however I tend to agree with Terry Abra rather than John Cope. At a time when Public Sector Net Borrowing is running at record levels this is a prime example of waste of resources and smacks of bureaucratic bullying rather than law enforcement. With so many other things that the police could be doing surely there needs to be a reassessment of priorities. How about more road worthiness checks on foreign trucks?

Radio discussion by a barrister today(nicknamed loophole )made the valid point based on 2005 case law in favour of the driver on the basis that it would be required to proven that the vehicle /driver was speeding before he was flashed for the conviction to be upheld. The convicted driver is being encouraged to appeal his conviction on this case law. The reference to the use of flashing lights in the highway code can be considered as guidance as they are not part of road traffic law.(ref loophole 5/1/11)

Surely what Mr Thompson was doing was discouraging people from breaking the law. That cannot be illegal. I remember some years ago reading of a magistrate's court case that came to that conclusion after someone put up a sign warning of a radar trap.

So if I see a motorist speeding and flash him so that he slows down, that is illegal and discouraged by the police! That is an irresponsible attitude. No wonder the traffic police are considered a bad joke even by their more "normal" colleagues!

I agree entirely with Adrian's comments Looking back, weren't the AA & RAC originally set up to salute (warn) members of speed traps?

I totally support the prosecution. If I were to believe for one moment that the actions of Mr Thompson would have had the same effect on speeding motorists as the imposition of a fine and three points, then I might take a different view. All he was doing was assisting those who were breaking the law to avoid the penalties associated with their actions. To claim that he was warning people of a hazard ahead is simply disingenuous. Taking Mr Thompson's argument to a logical conclusion, I presume he would be more comfortable with hidden speed cameras?

Police always say that speed cameras are to make people slow down and drive within the speed limit, not to collect fines. If another driver warns people to slow down, he gets the same result. why prosecute him?

This is absolutely ridiculous! He was right that people brake dangerously when they come across cameras so I think he was actually making the situation safer.

Councils provide several warnings for fixed cameras. Should they all be fined also?

Hi David - I just wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your emails they always make me smile and lighten my day. Keep up the typing.

Hi David - my only comment is that you keep writing as lucidly and amusingly as ever please!

Working in logistics across West Africa and facing the bureaucracy and open corruption leads one to occasional sense of humour lapses (only occasionally - as without a huge store of sense of humour one would break apart).

Reading your CABs refreshes me, reminds me of why I'm here and keeps me up to date with holistic transport issues in UK. Thanks.

David Jinks wrote: Yep, in 1948 British Road Services was formed, and not only did it incorporate the old haulage businesses of the railway companies and Pickfords, but also every long-distance road haulage company in the land. And in 1948 long distance was defined as over 40 miles!

Well David you got me there on that one B.R.S, I remember them well as my granfather who was a fitter at their Newport [Wales] depot took me on a visit, besides all those tram buses running around I was only five years old and my father was a driver with them at Bridgend now [John Raymond territory]. How history revolves, but I'm sure that we dont want to go back to those days with one company having the monopoly as the one man bands wouldn't have a lookin.

David Jinks wrote: German company DB is taking over Arriva. Should we have a Cadbury law?

It's that nit-picking, feather-plucking, fellow, name of Price again! I don't know how many sites Arriva own, or DB for that matter, but I think that the allusion was to the device one uses to aim a gun, namely a gun-sight.

However, turning to the more important issue of the nationality of companies, I think that the vital factor is how well the companies are managed. This is true whether we are talking of publicly owned, privately owned or quoted organisations and particularly whether they are geared to short term returns or long term development. Regardless of what the company produces, or the services it offers, when the input is analysed there is likely to be global dependancy on raw materials, manufacturing or processing facilities, sub-let risk and so on.

If companies are well managed in this respect with sensible, stable long term government policies to back them up (I wish!!) I believe that the nationality issue will sort itself out automatically. Nevertheless, I am sure that this debate will run and run

I am quite happy to have DB owning passenger TOCs in UK provided that we have a similar fare structure to their German prices instead of the rip off, cross-subsidised, passenger unfriendly methods of charging employed by the existing, passenger TOCs.

Re the Editors Blog - the main objection to the Kraft takeover was their blatant lie about keeping the Keynsham factory open, not that they were American. The anti-American sentiment followed on from this.

David Jinks asked for your comments on 'Ashmageddon':

I am currently "stranded" in Brisbane. as Emirates are not accepting transit passengers until they have cleared the backlog of passengers in Dubai. There are worse places to be "stranded" and I have work to do here. It is clear from all the reports than innovative and imaginative solutions have been found for short-haul passengers and freight, but what about long-haul? The most frustrating thing for me has been a lack of clear information. I therefore assumed the worst and planned accordingly. It is evident that there was a lack of leadership, which created confusion. I hope lessons will be learned at government level.

David Jinks Wrote: Am I getting on your nerves?
Are you comfortable with the amount of emails you receive from your Institute every week?

Thanks for the oppertunity to respond I have voted because there are now too mant E Mails which detracts from the interest level. It seems to have happened since we changed the structure of the faculties. Information and communication is always good for us all but there is a danger of suffocation from volume which could lead to a reduction of interest. Bye the way the CAB is brilliant.

Thanks SH you said it for me.

I've no problem with the number of mails from CILT. The fact is e-mail's are a modern day phenomena both in the work place and at home. For me I prefer lots of short e-mails covering a single issue/subject rather than hideously long and convoluted ones. That way I can scan them quickly and dispense with those that are of no interest and move on to those that need my attention

I am happy with regular e mails to keep me up to date.

Afternoon David, the notes are a highlight and as well as humorous, they are aslo topical (unlike much of the unsolicted stuff I get). If I don't have the time in any given week I don't read it.

The weekly newsletter's fine. It's the repetitive event announcements which annoy me. Perhaps Tyne-Tees members are deleting them all, thereby missing their local meetings.

I think all organisations should actively seek to control e mail and well done CILT. A consolidated e mail every 2-3 days would suffice, though I would not want this policy to cut out the region. Notwithstanding the odd comment, I do appreciate David Jinks' slightly informal round up.

SH has it pretty much nailed, I can scan my e-mails and only review those that are relevant to me and my life, the rest can go in one easy and quick ress of the delete button

No problem to receive emails from the Institute for which we pay a large subscription isn't that the point to be informed. You are dammed if you do, and dammed if you dont, but if you ask the question you always get the complainers! Still do agree with comments about the magazine, but then again some of it has to be down to the members as we could all submit "interesting" articles of our own. Look forward to seeing/reading the interesting article submitted by David S.D in the next issue!!

SH pretty much sums up my thoughts, I'd rather decide what I want or do not want to read, yes its a pain getting 80+ e-mails a day, but as Steve H says, we are big enough to manage these. If I'm away and have to delete a couple of hundred e-mails its funny how the world keep turning. One thing i would add though is plese keep the main body of the e-mails relevent and do not clutter with adverts. This seems to be the trend everywhere in web land nowadays , e.g. even twitter has revised its policy on this

I don't care if you are the Head of the Commercial Bank of Nigeria. I'm still not giving you my bloody bank account details!

I'm with SH on this one: I can delete e-mails in milliseconds based on their titles, or time of arrival (like when I'm in the middle of doing something and the mail 'ghost' appears in the bottom right of my screen. Having Outlook's autopreview is also invaluable. And I put others in folders for reading later - again, seconds of time, not hours. My in-box is rarely bigger than 20 mails. I'd rather have 'too many' than no information at all. Please keep 'em coming !

As previously stated, I am relaxed and have abundant time to read my mail from this prestigious institution of higher learning. Many thanks.

ACL-B

I get shedloads of email at work and at home, but here's the thing: I'm a big boy, and I can read quite quickly, and I have had a sneaky look over my shoulder and guess what? No-one is forcing me to read anything. It takes about 5 seconds to look at an email and decide if I'm going to give it any more of my life. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. My call. My choice. So keep it coming, and I'll decide if it's worth the effort.

No problem with CILT email frequency. I would prefer if they didn't end up with a weblink to the rest of the story though as I often review "broadcast" emails on the plane.

Agree, one consolidated email a day would suffice. Also, the "last chance to attend" back up emails to forums can be a bit annoying, so perhaps an option to decline from the outset would be more efficient? Bottom line is we should visit the CILT website daily anyway to find out "whats new".

GRW

Thank you DS-D for succinctly expressing in your first paragraph an exact replication of my own...

Perhaps consolidation would be a good idea. But as for myself I have no problems receiving emails for each and every topic. I find all communications informative and interesting.

It's OK for me now, because I am retired! Neverthless, David Jinks editorial shows the problem - there is no limit to how many emails can be received at the workface, and, in the last days for me anyway,when at work in a Rail Operating Control, an obligation to try to read them, to find out which were relevant to my section and print them off, rather than getting hard copy supplied to the desk as had been the norm since time immemorial. This meant that I could potentially be distracted from being proactive where it counted. Unfortunately, latterly, we had to sort through dozens every day The email is brilliant for some things e.g.to give hard copy of something perhaps discussed over the 'phone, and to send to other persons/functions which may need some input, give the benefit of their experience/knowledge. Unfortunately, I increasingly found that you would get 2 people 'agreeing' things without reference to operating instructions/restrictions, or to who else might need to know about them, or say that they were OK. The facility of email seemed to breed a 'Can do' without awareness of what was actually required, or permissible, at the sharp end. I could go on - suffice to say that we would find things out that hadn't been properly arranged, coming with traction that wasn't allowed over the 'planned' route and, in the case of one land cruise, already en route and booked to spend a couple of days north and west of Inverness, no chance whatsoever of providing a loco that would enable it to do so. Sorry - this isn't just about the number of emails out there, but the effect they have had on the old but reliable hard copy way of disseminating information to the places which needed it.

The medium is indeed shaping the message. Ten years ago the CIT published Proceedings which were thoughtful, interesting and professional. Now we get e mails that sound like a summary of Top Gear (and I don't get much ruder than that), and Focus which is largely full of self aggrandisement. Both logistics and transport are more interesting than this. A mathematical question. There has been in Tyne/Tees a negative correlation between e mail publicity for meetings and attendance at them. Is this true elsewhere?

DS-D

If some members are receiving too mnay emails, are their contact details up to date? I was receiving emails to both my personal and work addresses. Simples!

Yes, I am getting VERY edgy about the ridiculous number of emails I am getting. Several every day it would seem. 2 or 3 copies of many of them.

AEW

There is always a balance to be struck with communications. Frequency is important to keep the CILT events in people's minds; most will quickly scan the contents and determine within seconds whether they are interested. Without them, you run the risk of undertaking a lot of work and not getting the attendance. I get quite a lot of national and local, which I do not mind. I also enjoy your emails as they contain information as well as a bit of wit and banter so keep them coming.

Emails are both a blessing and a curse but we have all learned to spin through them quickly then pause on the ones that interest us, is my opinion.

No you do not get on my nerves !

I am a remote member on the Isle of Man, who reads with interest your blogs. - admittedly not all of them, I normally save them for a coffee break or at the end of the day.

We only have a small office here, overlooking the castle and harbour of bobbing yachts/boats.

I feel more connected to my Institute with emails like this ! If they interest me I can click further

The frequency is fine with me. Having witnessed you perform live I can relate to your sense of humour.

I find the frequency of your emails quite tolerable, and indeed I look forward to your Wednesday ramblings!. I would rather know too much than miss out on anything.

Incidently all emails I receive about certain parts and bank accounts go straight into my spam folder so they dont clutter up the more important stuff.

Your bite size chunks are fine, and the only advice I can offer is to use the e-mail rules funtion to its maximum potential. All the stuff I get sent automatically because I am on a managers distribution list now get filtered away using key words.

David Jinks wrote: I wonder how many of us will actually change the way we vote though because of professional reasons?
If a party states it will insist overseas based trucks arrive here with nearly empty tanks and then have to buy fuel at the same cost as we do, would you switch the way you vote?

Here's a suggestion for consideration (without doing the number-crunching to produce the actual figures).

UK diesel costs have become closer to European ones over the last couple of years so:

Increase VAT on diesel to (say) 30 per cent, but reduce fuel tax proportionately so the pump price remains the same.

Any European VAT-registered company can claim back the VAT

This would make the price more competitive with Europe

Give British Hauliers a boost, which could give them the opportunity to reduce delivery rates, hence encourage lower prices at the till.

Just a thought

Well I have to say that reading the CAB this morning , it did make me wonder that if any of the South East Transport issues were "fixed", not addressed or investigated, but actually fixed with a full solution I do wonder if I would change my political view on the party that could actually manage it.

Operation Stack, blights everyone in the South East, but all we get is a £2m temporary barrier that actually makes no difference to the traffic disruption.
What about this huge lorry park, ? Build it on the farmland on the left of the M20 between J11 and J11A , not on the Northbound side of the motorway ! Doh..
Why do trucks tailgate each other to the point that you could not squeeze a smart car between them, there must be a law against it.

Well that's me this morning , time for a Skinny Latte and get on with the day..

David Jinks wrote: Like a typical politician, I've just lied to you actually. Or at least I've been economical with the truth. I did select a different party the first time I ever voted - for short term tactical reasons. There was this red headed vegan girl who lived in Clapham, and I voted Green in order to woo her...

Thank you so much for the latest CAB editorial - almost without fail you make me smile or laugh - red headed vegan indeed - and humour makes the whole thing work well.

Temsa Avenue on trial with First Group

The Temsa "Avenue" is already in service with Arriva North East operating from Redcar Depot,whilst I read with interest the trial in Bradford the fact that at least 6 of these buses are already in use puts this news item somewhat in the shade

RMC

I feel that I should add a comment to the item "New Lightweight Bus to be trialled by First" in the Passenger Transport section of CAB for 31 March 2010.

Whilst there is nothing incorrect with the item, and I appreciate that it is probably reproduced from a News Release supplied by FirstGroup, the implication of the item is that First are the first operator to be trialling this bus.

Before a war of words breaks out between rival operators, I should point out that Arriva North East already has more than 20 of these vehicles which were developed jointly with them, in service and were the first operator to intoduce them.

See "Buses" February 2010 page 14 (in the Library at Corby) for a full report, and probably other articles in the Technical Press at that time.

I read with interest your Nautical themed Blog and wondered if could volunteer some information from North of the Border for your consideration.

I am the Scottish representative of Freight Best Practice, I am sure you are familiar with Jonathan James, Geoff Clarke and the rest of the AECOM team from the Altrincham office. This year our clients at the Scottish Government asked us to profile some of the domestic coastal shipping on the North West coast of Scotland. I have written a Case Study for the Freight Best Practice programme titled ‘Highland Waterborne Freight' which clearly shows a reduction of HGV miles, fuel saving and CO2 saving as a result of the two services profiled, one of which uses a Scottish Government funded Freight Facilities Grant.

David Jinks wrote: Dover Marine was a gorgeous station where the boat trains set sail for the Continent. It was like taking a step into a grand Victorian adventure arriving there.

For me one of the finest, like Dover Marine (aka Western Docks), is Tilbury Riverside.

It used to have a rail link (uprooted by 1990's accountant thuggery) but the building, from the outside at least is very fine.

Occasional fairs are held there - the seamans' chapel and stained glass window is in itself well worth a look.