The Toad - All the c**p that's unfit to print

The long awaited report on a low-cost method to lower Britain's car emissions was rejected as 'just too simple to be a practical and worthwhile proposition', a Westminster working group heard yesterday.

The proposal suggested lowering the maximum speed limit on the motorways to a rigourously enforced 60MPH with a 50MPH limit on trunk roads and 20 MPH in built-up areas. The argument being that there would be a huge saving on fuel, carbon emissions and lower road deaths. The instigator of the idea, a man in a pub in Worthing, also pointed out that the amount saved financially could be 'quite a lot' as less fuel would need to be purchased, and the wear and tear on cars would be reduced. He also pointed out a potential 'huge' saving on road deaths, resulting in 'a lot of cash' being saved for the NHS, not to mention lessening the human misery that road accidents generate.

The mind-numbingly simple idea, however, did not find favour with the government's joint European road pollution action committee who considered it 'just too simple' and dismissed the man in the pub's ideas as being 'poorly thought out' and lacking 'intellectual weight' and without any 'proper statistics to back up the argument'. While conceding that they couldn't see what was wrong with the plan, they did feel 'there had to be a downside somewhere that we just can't see' and suggested that global warming was 'a complex problem' that required 'complex answers' rather than the ordinary citizen being asked to change the way they do things.

Critics of the plan were relieved that this 'loony plan' was rejected, and relaxed their plans to lobby parliament if the 'drive slower' concept were ever to be seriously considered.

'Obviously, we are hugely relieved that the Government will not be pursuing this unworkable solution,' said a representative of HM Customs and Excise, who would stand to lose billions in duty and VAT in the move, 'and our colleagues in the petrol supply industry are similarly relieved.'

Driver's groups were also critical of the plan, and were prepared to go to Brussels to defend the right of British motorists to 'drive like lunatics' if they wished to.

'What the so-called brains behind this plan don't realise is that journey times would be increased,' explained a motoring lobbyist yesterday, 'everyone would be late for work, and the lost working days would lead to the collapse of Britain as an economic nation.' He also made a plea on behalf of the beleaguered second home-owners whose life would be made intolerable if they had to spend an extra thirty minutes getting to their houses in Norfolk. Asked if he had read the 'leaving home earlier' consultation paper which outlines a possible solution to the 'being late' problem, the same lobbyist explained that endless unworkable 'patches' to deal with the devastating social and economic problems of driving slowly was a 'slippery slope to the hell of petty officialdom'.

With this simplistic and unworkable idea out of the way, the same panel will be discussing other methods of running the nation's cars at uneconomic speeds around the country, and will be looking at a raft of more profitable solutions such as Biofuels and other nonsense.

'The solution to this problem lies in designing new and expensive technologies to sap the pay-packet of the wage-earner while giving them the illusion of personal freedom,' explained the spokesman, 'it's a win-win situation, if you don't count the planet.'

Josh Hatchett, reporting for The Toad.

Today's Toad Toad Archive Fforde Website

Next Article Previous Article The Daily Toad: Proudly disseminating sensationalised rubbish since 1645. 12th May 2008.
'Driving slower' initiative dismissed as 'just too simplistic'
Some slow-moving traffic yesterday Some non-moving traffic yesterday A car-free road yesterday	The long awaited report on a low-cost method to lower Britain's car emissions was rejected as 'just too simple to be a practical and worthwhile proposition', a Westminster working group heard yesterday. The proposal suggested lowering the maximum speed limit on the motorways to a rigourously enforced 60MPH with a 50MPH limit on trunk roads and 20 MPH in built-up areas. The argument being that there would be a huge saving on fuel, carbon emissions and lower road deaths. The instigator of the idea, a man in a pub in Worthing, also pointed out that the amount saved financially could be 'quite a lot' as less fuel would need to be purchased, and the wear and tear on cars would be reduced. He also pointed out a potential 'huge' saving on road deaths, resulting in 'a lot of cash' being saved for the NHS, not to mention lessening the human misery that road accidents generate. The mind-numbingly simple idea, however, did not find favour with the government's joint European road pollution action committee who considered it 'just too simple' and dismissed the man in the pub's ideas as being 'poorly thought out' and lacking 'intellectual weight' and without any 'proper statistics to back up the argument'. While conceding that they couldn't see what was wrong with the plan, they did feel 'there had to be a downside somewhere that we just can't see' and suggested that global warming was 'a complex problem' that required 'complex answers' rather than the ordinary citizen being asked to change the way they do things. Critics of the plan were relieved that this 'loony plan' was rejected, and relaxed their plans to lobby parliament if the 'drive slower' concept were ever to be seriously considered. 'Obviously, we are hugely relieved that the Government will not be pursuing this unworkable solution,' said a representative of HM Customs and Excise, who would stand to lose billions in duty and VAT in the move, 'and our colleagues in the petrol supply industry are similarly relieved.' Driver's groups were also critical of the plan, and were prepared to go to Brussels to defend the right of British motorists to 'drive like lunatics' if they wished to. 'What the so-called brains behind this plan don't realise is that journey times would be increased,' explained a motoring lobbyist yesterday, 'everyone would be late for work, and the lost working days would lead to the collapse of Britain as an economic nation.' He also made a plea on behalf of the beleaguered second home-owners whose life would be made intolerable if they had to spend an extra thirty minutes getting to their houses in Norfolk. Asked if he had read the 'leaving home earlier' consultation paper which outlines a possible solution to the 'being late' problem, the same lobbyist explained that endless unworkable 'patches' to deal with the devastating social and economic problems of driving slowly was a 'slippery slope to the hell of petty officialdom'. With this simplistic and unworkable idea out of the way, the same panel will be discussing other methods of running the nation's cars at uneconomic speeds around the country, and will be looking at a raft of more profitable solutions such as Biofuels and other nonsense. 'The solution to this problem lies in designing new and expensive technologies to sap the pay-packet of the wage-earner while giving them the illusion of personal freedom,' explained the spokesman, 'it's a win-win situation, if you don't count the planet.' Josh Hatchett, reporting for The Toad.
Also inside your Toad: Using financial incentives to get addicts off drugs lambasted as 'Not how we do things' Devastating human and fiscal cost of alcohol and gambling abuse 'totally acceptable' to nation, report hears. Charlton Heston dies; Nation braces itself for 'Ben-Hur' and 'Ten Commandment' repeats

Today's Toad Toad Archive Fforde Website
More Toad