Labour's war on the motorist

In recent days we have seen a selection of proposals making it harder for people to drive, fitting neatly into Labour’s wider authoritarian, nanny-state instinct: the belief that everyday life must be managed, supervised, and regulated ever more tightly by the state, regardless of cost, evidence, or personal freedom.

The first of these, additional eye-tests for the over-70s, seems reasonable — a precautionary safety measure — but still one that represents an additional burden on older drivers, imposed as a blanket rule rather than on the basis of individual need.

Then there are proposals to reduce the drink-drive limit in England and Wales, bringing it down from the current 35 micrograms in line with the more restrictive 22 micrograms currently in force in Scotland. Regulatory alignment for regulatory alignment’s sake is not a logical argument, particularly when the SNP are involved. England and Wales already enjoy an enviable safety record, with 24 road deaths per million annually: the fourth lowest in Europe, and comparing more than favourably with the global average of around 150 per million per year.

Under the new proposals, those with a lighter frame are likely to find themselves over the limit after a single pint of beer or a glass of wine. Have Labour asked rural pubs what they might think of this? Of course not, because you would be hard-pushed to find a single Labour voter in any of them.

Finally, we have plans to make learner drivers wait a minimum of six months between passing their theory test and sitting their practical test — a proposal that will have negligible impact on safety and is a surefire way to upset the 16- and 17-year-olds that this inept Labour government wishes to enfranchise.

The private motor vehicle is a great driver (no pun intended) of individual autonomy, providing both convenience and independence at a time in which the state is increasingly poking its grubby little fingers into every aspect of our lives. It must be defended.