“It is now evident, however, that cost-cutting has played a part in the utterly inadequate roll-out of smart motorway features. That has put lives at risk.”
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
The news that the smart mobile network 5G’s roll-out is not happening within ten miles of airports follows on from our May 2019 Gadgets & Gizmos, drawing attention to its implementation being stalled by lamp-posts. Meanwhile, a hold has been placed on the roll-out of ‘smart motorways’ due to the high rate of fatalities, and the danger they pose to motorists.
The more inter-connected we become, the more risk we are exposed to. Increasingly, we don't seem to evaluate innovations adequately at the development stage: it's more a matter of ‘whoops, that doesn't work after all’.
So in this commentary we call for more study and research before we launch new ideas. One such new idea is to call time on the BBC licence fee, and we join the discussion to ask for a root and branch review to move to a structure more appropriate for today's broadcasting.
Smart motorways, like the HS2 railway initiative, were the brainchild of Tony Blair's Labour Government. Over the past few years, they have drawn an increasing amount of criticism as the death toll attributed to them has climbed - it's now 38 people.
Also known as ‘managed motorways’ incorporating ‘active traffic management’ (in Scotland they’re described as an ‘intelligent transport systems’), the term ‘smart motorway’ was first used by the Highways Agency to promote new technology to road users.
However, anyone involved with technology knows that it is only as good as the input that is applied to it, and human failings have been all too evident in these ‘smart motorways’, with lanes only being closed well after fatal accidents have occurred.
Indeed John Apter, National Chair (currently suspended) of the Police Federation of England and Wales, stated his dislike of the term ‘smart motorways’ by saying that: ‘They’re anything but: it's inherently dangerous and putting lives at risk’.
The Department for Transport is known for its robust approach to opposition: their approach to HS2 protests is more in keeping with China or Russia than in a democracy such as the United Kingdom. However, even they have bent to the tide of criticism, pausing the construction of any more smart motorways until retro-fitting the entire network with radar and improved cameras has been implemented.
Another institution challenged by change is the BBC, and Nadine Dorries’ announcement that the next licence fee settlement would be the last, is timely recognition that we must deal with this seemingly benevolent monster, which has lost its place in a world of Netflix, YouTube and streaming services.
Former Question Time presenter David Dimbleby wrote to The Times last Friday, setting out his ideas for a progressive licence fee based on the Council Tax. But he was missing the point: the BBC has simply grown too large, and is invading all kinds of areas in which the free market is well equipped to deliver.
The key challenge is to cut the BBC down to size, by looking at each channel and asking whether this could be better provided by the private sector. As a result, swathes of expensive production could be privatised, raising substantial sale proceeds and leaving a core which really is ‘public service broadcasting’.
During the past seven years operating Share Radio, we've become deeply conscious of the distortion of UK broadcasting, rendering private ventures unviable and introducing all kinds of regulatory constraints which strait-jacket their operations. Indeed it was only by moving to 100% internet broadcasting that we were able to be freed from the public service constraints applied to commercial radio by Ofcom.
It is far from ‘smart’ to allow sheer scale to dominate the planning process. Whether it's the volume of traffic on the roads, or the gargantuan size of the BBC, we must learn to trim our activities down to size and manage the future in a way which is more appropriate for the environment and the changing styles of modern life.
It would be sensible to be more discriminating in our use of the word ‘smart’. It introduces a degree of smug overstatement which needs tempering with a heavy dose of humility.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio