Month: January 2019

Not the Six O’clock News

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

In an age when news is available almost as soon as it happens, there  must be a rigorous approach to understanding the truth of what is being reported.

The most basic aspect of reported news is that it is second hand information. In other words it has been processed, even if it is just a photograph or a short video – the viewer and or image processor has ‘filtered’ the image through the view of the viewer. For instance, if you wish to present a politic march as peaceful, you take photographs of people marching peacefully. If you wish to present the march as antagonistic and violent, you feature the occasion where there was violence. Even if neither of these states occurred it is a simple matter to copy and paste alternative messages on banners or people holding machine guns instead of bags.

What might be good evidence of events is no longer believable and, at the very least, needs substantial corroboration from reliable sources.

We know that the code of ethical journalism requires more than one source of information and all sources must be assessed thoroughly. These sources have the right to remain anonymous if they have reason, as often they do.

I have noticed a trend in some newspapers to directly report ( that is qoute) what other newspapers have reported. I don’t know what agreements or arrangements go on between them but it shows an eagerness to share headline news at the expense of a scoop. Such stories are in effect ‘third hand’ as we know that selective quotations can be misleading and curve the truth.

With the coming of a plethora of choice of news channel on television and radio, the task of the viewer is different. I mentioned to a friend recently that I sometimes watch the Russia Today television channel. He was aghast at the idea anyone of sound mind would do this. I tried to argue that I like to see news stories reported from different points of view.

It is more common for people to have political views of a particular shade and then seek sources the substantiate their opinions. Personally, my feeling is that if views are so fixed then there really is little reason to follow events in the world since the coloured lens through which the are observed will not reveal what is really happening.

Crucial to any rational appreciation of events is to understand facts and statistics. I enjoy the phrase ‘my version of the facts‘ since this is an aberration often prevalent in debate. Many interviews on the radio involve the presenter or interviewer using carefully sourced facts and the respondent basing their counter argument on disputing those facts.

BBC Radio 4 has an radio programme called ‘More or Less’ in which statisticians examine in detail how facts are obtained and what conclusions can be drawn from them – if at all. Frequently they pull the rug from under politicians who have used figures to prove a preconception. The expression ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ comes to mind because figures are too frequently used to prove a lie.

Prevalent in the United States of America today is the accusation that news is ‘fake’. This is a valid criticism at one end of the spectrum between ‘true’ and ‘false’. Since we were not there and even if we had been we may not have had ring side seat, all reported news includes bias as already described. The question is really, how much bias is included or how true is this? Being ‘fake’ is not a reason to dismiss a view because there is rarely smoke without fire.

For this reason I am eclectic in my sources of information so that I can form a judgement of the ‘mean’ or most likely closeness to truth on the balance of probabilities.

This perhaps is the difference between King Solomon and the rule of a dictator.

A wise ruler will listen to all sides and form an opinion or judgement based on what most likely happened. A dictator cares little for any version of events other than those which support his or her own agenda.

Looking around the global governments today, many are clearly occupied by dictators whether they agree to this appellation or not. Some, even in traditional democracies, are veering towards being those who speak only what they want to hear.

Not All Aliens are Bad

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Today is Australia Day, 26th January 2019 considered as a celebration of the arrival of a fleet of British ships in Sydney Harbour in 1770.

Unfortunately it is not a day all souls in Australia wish to celebrate by consuming a mountain of tinnies down at the beach. There is also a rally of Aboriginal people in Canberra today, who wish to point out that they were here first and have at least, equal rights to the country.

It’s a difficult one, because both sides have a point. History (in my personal definition) consists of one dam thing after another. This includes previously undisturbed or (from the other view) undiscovered tribes, races or lottery winners – who would have preferred being left alone.

Clearly ships without engines cannot travel backwards any more than history can be rewound, so for purely pragmatic reasons, those hiding have to factor in the certainty of being found – eventually.

The important point in my view, is that the rights of those being ‘discovered’ are respected – in modern times these would be classified and defined as ‘human rights’. So ignoring the benefit of hindsight in too large a dose, the rights of indigenous peoples in say, Australia were largely ignored, even if this was out of a sense of ‘doing the right thing’; such putting European style clothes on them.

In New Zealand, I believe the Maori s were given a better ‘deal’ under the Treaty of Waitonga than their counterparts in Australia. Having said that, the Maori s gave the previous inhabitants of New Zealand a very bad deal indeed – few survived – so history can teach us all.

My point of conjecture is that humans find it alarmingly hard to be ‘universal’ in their love and trust of one another. Even when Homo Sapiens Sapiens left Africa and / or the Euphrates basin and headed north, the Neanderthals already in Europe were not too happy to see them. (Recent DNA evidence though, suggests that some Neanderthals were very happy to see them.)

In modern man there remains, what I call, the ‘football shirt’ mentality. This would be more accurately termed ‘tribalism’ by an anthropologist but the behavioural mechanisms are the very similar. Let me explain the football analogy.

If you quizzed the eager fans queuing for an important league football match to ascertain their level of understanding of the rules of the game, I expect they would all score in the region of 90% and above. In other words – they are fully conversant with the rules. However, fast forward to a moment in the game where there is a dispute of what just happened, say – ‘was a player offside just before scoring?’ The supporters who benefit from the goal will all swear that the player was not offside. The rival supporters will all swear the opposite.

Although they know how the game works in their heads, their hearts will filter what they have just seen in favour of their beliefs and prejudices. In other words, a bias is in command. At worst this is manifest as violence and hatred, at best, a conviction that the referree has left his white stick in the dressing room. What has happened is that the stadium has become emotionally divided.

Most so called ‘racism’ has this origin and manifestation although the word has complex meanings in modern usage (so much so that the Norwegians refuse to use it in legal definitions and prefer alternatives). However ‘racism’ is a bias or prejudice against a perceived group so that, that group suffer a loss. In the case of the football match, they may lose the game. In the case of an undiscovered tribe in a rain forest or continent, the effect may be considerably more serious than loss of a game.

Some tribalism persists irrevocably in modern western societies and is encapsulated in ‘religion’.

I remember Rabbi Lionel Blue speaking on the radio and telling a story of a Jewish boy arriving at his new primary school in Northern Ireland. He is quizzed by a Catholic boy and Protestant boy about his religion. On hearing that he was a ‘Jew’ they both looked confused. After a pause the question was asked, ‘Are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?’

With the perfect logic that is characteristic of the naïve and very young, we have an example of the irrationality of bias and prejudices of religious and cultural dogma. It may surface in a form of an unusual form of dress or a way of thought. In every instance it is worthy of deep mistrust.

At the end of the day (and at the end of the world) we will all be judged for our actions. Such things as the unconscious biases (that we all contain through parental and cultural conditioning) will reveal how prejudiced we have been to our fellow beings.

If you haven’t followed my train of thought, then watch the news when the Aliens arrive! As the jets and missiles are loosed at their space craft, consider for a moment what very highly advanced spiritual people, aliens probably are.

The Wall

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Humpty Trumpty

Imagined a wall

Humpty Trumpty

Had a great fall

You might be forgiven for not believing in election promises because this would not be the first election promise to be broken. After all, the Mexicans were meant to pay for it and they must have changed their minds…right?

Anyway, there are plenty of ways to climb down from a border wall promise. One might be that the country cannot afford it. A country that owed 9 trillion a decade ago and now owns 22 trillion dollars…perhaps it’s in the national interest not to go further into debt?

No, Mr T has decided on a wall and he is having one. He will have made a thorough investigation into the problem and how a wall is the perfect solution, right?

What’s the problem?

Well, we have these eight year old criminals coming over into the USA from Mexico and other south American countries and threatening the lives of honest living Americans. So, to save the Americans we must stop the criminal children and their criminal parents seeking political asylum. This problem is so real and bad, really really bad, that any amount of money must be spent and liberty can go to hell, because a state of National Emergency is likely to be called all because of these bad bad people over there. Not me! Not me doing this! I am forced to do it!

It’s a rather chaotic summary of the problem but it’s close.

The solution proposed has passed the SWOT test as follows;

Strengths

Walls are known to keep the people out that you don’t like. For instance prison walls, they keep people out – well in actually but that’s not our intention – let me check – oh OK perhaps that is the agenda they said not to mention. So walls keep people out who are planning to murder Americans because they are hungry and tired and in fear of their lives and need a job. Well a wall is more effective and reliable than the Border Force we have already have. They are hopeless aren’t they? Anyway a wall will make them not work so hard which must be an advantage, right? Perhaps I can sack them! Oh please let me sack them.

Weaknesses

We don’t like to admit this but perhaps a wall only needs to be breached in a small section and you might as well not have thousands of miles of wall at all. A small breach lets through a lot of people in a short amount of time, like a leak in a dam drains the lake real quick. So anyone with a steel penetrating weapon, like a shoulder carried anti tank weapon, can make a hole in any steel wall. Not that you will get hold of a military weapon in America that easily.

Then there are the two ends which go into the sea. Not sure how to stop people using boats to go around the ends of the wall? Sharks?

And however high it is, people will try to go over it. Yes, people can’t fly but they can if they use aircraft, or hang gliders, or drones or balloons or anything that is lighter than air actually. And since the wall is intended to last a long time, technology is going to make flight easier, year on year.

Or they can dig. The wall will go under the surface of the earth a distance and then stop. So you dig and go under the wall. Advantage of this is you can’t be seen. Dig at night. Cover the tunnel entrance. Confuse sensors with motorbikes. Steve Mc Queen. He took a motorbike over a wall didn’t he? Huh, Hollywood pranks, just fake.

And the wall will force more people to use the pinch points, that is legal border crossings. These will need all the facilities to deal with processing asylum seekers, staff, investigators, medics, offices, holding areas, accommodation, food, money, money and more money…not cheap.

Opportunities

When there is a wall, American citizens can sleep in their beds at night because although there are millions of illegal immigrants already in America, America will be much safer because those in can’t get out and those out can’t get in. Get it?

Threats

The only threat to this very very good solution is the Democrats who just don’t get it. They don’t believe it will be practical or good value for money and will stop it being built. But once they see how good even a short section of wall is at keeping people on the other side, they will be convinced it’s good value for money.

Or perhaps in the future people will stop wanting to come into the USA. Perhaps the movement of people will change direction and people will want to leave America for a stable regime in Mexico and beyond. They won’t like the wall and won’t vote Democrat again.

Then there are robots being developed now that will be able to over come the wall far more easily than humans, and help humans travel either way over under through or around the wall. Robots. Don’t you hate them.

After all this really hard thinking the Whitehouse team were asked embarrassing questions by journalists. Isn’t a wall a very old fashioned idea that has never worked historically? The Berlin wall for instance or Hadrian’s wall in Scotland?

Someone suggested to Mr T that border walls were a medieval idea. Mr T was very very clever indeed in his response. He said that wheels were invented in medieval times and they are still being used. Therefore things that worked long ago, will still work today. That’s his logic. I wonder if he has ever seen a picture of a chariot from 5000BCE? When ever the first wheel rolled down the hill, the point is that walls were never a good idea and wheels always were a good idea. The fact that both appeared in the past does not make anything from the past a good idea. That’s a syllogism. Could someone hand Mr T a dictionary?

Many Caesars were murdered because of their politics in Roman times, but that does not mean assassination of a president is a good idea today.

Even if a president acts conspiratorial and wields executive powers over the democratic checks and balances, he is still a very very reasonable guy with only the lives of little American babies at the foremost of this thoughts and the criminal gangs trying to kill them.

Yes, sir. We all believe you.

What and How

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Why are politicians good at speaking but less good at thinking?

At the moment in both USA and UK politics we have two leaders arguing the what rather than the how. In other words, they focus their arguments on what they are going to achieve rather than how they are going to achieve it. It’s so simple, it is not easy to suppose a reason. Perhaps it is that the how of things, the best course of action, is complex whereas the what, is simple. Perhaps it is cunning or at worst, deceipt.

For example, today the United Kingdom House of Commons will vote on how the conservative party are proposing to leave European Union. I say ‘the conservative party’ but even many conservatives do not agree with the terms of withdrawal being proposed. In complex situations where there is compromise and negotiations to overcome, there are often several directions to follow, all of which achieve a similar objective. In this case it is to withdrawal from the European Union. However the Prime Minister, who is renowned for being secretive and poor at communication, has only one ‘deal’. As a demonstration of her ‘iron will’, or stubbornness as others would see it, she is arguing that the only democratic course for those who believe in the British system of government, is to support her how. There is no plan B, or how B. By either lazy thinking on her part of a political modus operandi that forces others to support her for the wrong reason, plan B is to crash. Fear of a ‘hard Brexit’ is not the right reason to approve her proposed how to leave Europe. That is doubtful politics ethically, and likely to back fire. It is a good example of how some politicians prefer to argue about objectives, rather than examine in fine detail, how to get there.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, exactly the same process is being exploited by Mr. Trump to get his own way. His what is to keep ‘unwanted immigrants’ out of America. To justify the ‘unwanted’ part of this aim is to categorise them as ‘bad people’ and to associate them with drug dealing and criminality.

Having painted such a clear picture that even the most slow of Americans can cotton onto, he then moves onto the how – the solution. This is where clear and objective thinking starts. A high school student faced with the same problem would ask for the facts and figures, interview those from all sides affected by the problem, examine and assess acceptable solutions to similar situations in other countries, poll locally for the preferred solutions by different interest groups and then do the same process in political circles to gain support and justify costs with benefits.

I expect neither Mrs May nor Mr Trump have been through this or a similar process. Their civil servants may have done, since they are experienced in the process of governing, but the politicians? Mr Trump has boasted how he makes decisions using his ‘instinct’. I expect a gambler or failed businessman is familiar with this type of decision making. But the objective is not to make a decision, it is to enable the right decision to be made in the interests of the greatest number of tax paying patriots in the present and the future.

Mr T. believes that ‘good fences make good neighbours’ as Robert Frost put it. That familiar metaphor is not analogous to the problem of international migration. Your next door neighbour is not breaking down your garden fence in fear of his or her life and planning to stay in your prize flower bed for the unforeseeable future.

He believes that walls keep people and drugs out. The ‘devil’ as always is in the detail or the how of the solution of a wall. His security advisers say that the wall should be see-through so that people in proximity of the wall on the other side can be closely monitored. This is standard advice and, for instance, why bus stops favour glass screens in their construction. However, those wishing to prevent drugs being passed across the border using plastic pipes pushed through the gaps to slide through drugs; they will be pleased to have a wall made of vertical steel girders with gaps. Even high security prisons, have problems with drugs coming into gaols and breaching the wall is one method used.

When Mr Trumps opposition refuse to pay for a border wall on the grounds that is not the best solution, Mr T plays his trump card; the one we have all seen before.

‘Why do you not want American citizens to be safe?’

Magicians use this. It is called distraction and in political debate, it works as well. If one party is arguing about the detail of things, methods, factual arguments, informed advice and debate etc. etc. the other party just sits up and says something not about the how, but about the what.

‘Oh, so you are in favour of illegal immigrants murdering and stealing and bringing drugs into our country.’

‘Oh, so you are in favour of ignoring the will of the British people and the process of democracy and you want the country to crash and all the negative consequences?’

Listen carefully and watch their practised skills in deception.

Is Education Working?

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The answer to this question, has to consider what education is for. If that is ‘preparation for life’ then is a traditional academic education a good preparation?

Reading and writing and arithmetic have long been recognised as essential skills for life, (although in the future this may be replaced by proficiency with AI interaction with robots!)

After these three basic skills, which can be taught in primary school, what next? Is it necessary and appropriate for modern life, to teach ‘traditional’ subjects such as history, geography, mathematics, languages?

Personally, I think these subjects do not fit with the aim of preparing young people for life. I remember a day in secondary school, when our maths teacher showed us how to fill in a cheque. That was nothing to do with maths but was useful later. Thanks Geoff, for going off curiculum.

Here is my wish list for subjects in secondary education.

Creativity

The Principles of Design and Engineering

DIY for houses, cars, bicycles, clothing, decoration, crafts.

Food Preparation and Diet

Health and Reproduction

Emotional Intelligence

Thinking Skills

Spirituality

Social Interaction

Art and Performing Arts; appreciation and production

Physical Sciences Life

Computer Interaction

Political Science

Travel

No doubt you could add to this list and explore interesting areas where subjects overlap. The important goal is to ‘prepare for life’, not memorise answers or copy what the previous generation is randomly passing on.

The course of a life, in this century in particular, is almost impossible to predict. Previous generations may have had something to pass on, but that is increasingly, no longer true, simply because it will not be relevant. The best that can be done is to hand over life skill tools. These will or might, empower a young adult to survive or thrive, depending on how well they listen!

For example, a course on travel might last just six months. In it a young person will be able to consider objectively;

Choosing a destination

Monetary security

Travel objectives such as new language skills, culture, enjoyment, respecting cultural diversity and sharing.

Travel necessities and packing

Risk assessment and safety

World Politics

Health and Diet

Planet Earth – fauna, flaura, geomorphology, etc.

Recording and Broadcasting

Ethics

Diversity

Ecology, Conservation and Planetary threats

With these skills and many more learnt through necessity through encounters whilst travelling, a young person can explore as much of the world as they are able and wish to.

This is ‘geography’.

When I studied architecture at University for seven years, I entered by first office job at the bottom of the ladder. My office skills were minimal and accordingly, so was my pay.

I had to learn everything that my expensive university courses had omitted. By encountering these office skills and management of building sites, chairing meetings, taking minutes, money management, dealing with clients, problem solving and much more, I was learning on the job. Even after ten years, when I had become proficient, I lacked the knowledge of how to set up in partnership, obtaining a business loan and professional indemnity insurance, seeking clients and self promotion. As a consequence of this, the oversupply of architects by Universities and the roller coaster of boom and bust characteristic of the building industry, I switched to a salaried career in the public sector with a good pension.

I therefore consider myself in a good position to advise young people to be very careful about their prospects to survive or thrive in life. I would add that I am not against young people becoming academics. I just think that this minority should be given this opportunity at University by self selection to specialise in any subject they wish.

The situation is in my view that secondary education establishments are offering a preparation for life. There are many inhibitors doing this, such as the cultural ‘norms’ which produce such concepts as the national curiculum and examinations. To use the well known metaphor – they are handing out fish instead of fishing rods. Even more disempowering than this, is that students are being lead to believe they will automatically thrive in life clutching certificates of academic excellence.

As a result of this (and no doubt other factors such as empowerment in the family, social media, self esteem issues and more), young people are setting off in life being barely able to survive on their own. Perhaps adults living at home, as is common in Europe today, are not only finding it hard to rent a room somewhere else.

I believe that particularly in the UK, there is a dependency culture where the state is relied upon as a benign benefactor, able to intervene when all else fails.

Factor in the endemic ‘dumbed down’ content of media and news, homelessness, mental health issues, drug dependency, unhappiness at work – and it is clear society is in a mess.

The question has to be persistently asked, is the present education system preparing young people for life?

Advanced Slow Driving

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The UK Automobile Association president, Edmund King, made comment recently that ‘driving like a snail can be as dangerous as driving like a cheetah’.

He gives as an example drivers using the middle lane of a motorway who drive ‘far below the speed limit’.

I would comment on this that the problem is principally using the middle lane of a motorway to drive on, rather than driving below the speed limit. If the driver were on the inside lane I expect this would not be a problem to other drivers.

The difficulty with these comments from Mr King is that they are muddled and vague. The first I have just commented on and the second is obvious. Is it possible to drive a car at the speed of a snail? I think you would burn out your clutch on the first hill. Less pedantically, describing speeds using animal metaphors shows thinking skills more appropriate to children’s stories. All cars have meters to show the speed of the car and all roads have speed limits. It is not difficult then to discuss speeds rationally instead of emotionally.

He also gives an example of cars going slowly in the acceleration lane leading into a motorway. ‘I was in a queue of five cars joining the M3 recently when the lead driver was driving at approximately 25mph. It was incredibly dangerous.’

It is worrying if we are all being asked to consider the personal driving experiences of another who is trying to prove a point by a single example. In this case it is not possible to talk to the driver of the lead vehicle to ask what he or she was thinking. The reasons are not justifications but may explain behaviour. Mr King will know that in some European countries, the traffic in the joining lane has to give way to traffic on the motorway, by law. Perhaps the lead driver did not understand the UK highway code? If this were the case then surely having been a member of the European Community for forty years, the UK government or influential motoring organisations should have done more to standardise driving laws? Mr King appears to have reacted like a Mr Toad instead of a Mr Owl.

Mr King will be aware of an impactive advertising campaign in the UK which brought home the fact very strongly that a driver at 40mph is going to kill a child pedestrian and a driver at 30mph no kill a child.

Interestingly the advertisement used exact speeds rather than animal analogies, presumably because understanding the killing power of a motor vehicle at different measurable speeds is important.

Hyundai commissioned a poll of 2000 UK drivers in 2018 where they found that the seventh most common reason for a driver swearing is ‘someone driving to slowly in front of you.’ Interestingly the highly emotional state of the driver is given implied credibility. Personally I would question whether they need some driving skills re-education rather than be given as an example of ‘normality’ in a poll. However the answer includes a level of vagueness that nullifies any point it might make. What is ‘someone driving too slowly’?

In most cases in my driving experience in the UK and Europe is that ‘driving too slowly’ is expressed by a driver who wishes to exceed the legal speed limit but is being prevented from doing so. This would be a more useful investigation for Hyundai. Personally I could prove this within five minutes of starting any journey by driving at the maximum legal speed limit and having the ability to speak to the driver being frustrated behind.

These drivers are the tailgater, a careless driving manner more worthy investigation than one driving just under the legal speed limit.

The problem we am really describing is one of ’emotional thinking’ rather than ‘rational thinking’. Would passengers in an aircraft for instance prefer a pilot who swears at other planes on the runway and in the air, who criticises them publically for flying in the manner of slow or fast birds?

Personally I’d rather be piloted by the rational, cool, calm, sober pilot who explains the reason for any delay and wishes us a pleasant continuing journey as we leave the plane.

As well as being an advocate of the safety benefits of driving under the legal speed limit (sorry you cheetahs out there I said it again!) there is another benefit.

I have known many advanced drivers and when I ask them what is the most important consideration they have when driving their private cars they reply, ‘fuel economy’. In the USA the maximum speed is 56mph for just this reason. If vehicles were travelling at 70mph they would be using one third more fuel.

If you told the average driver that they can reduce their fuel costs by this amount, I expect they would be interested. That is until they realise that they would have to allow more time for their journey and time for them is more precious than handing over a living planet to their grandchildren. This is the only reason other than ignorance that I can think of when I am overtaken by a large black 4×4 SUV on a motorway that must be using under 20 mpg. I drive a six gear diesel estate and regularly obtain 56 mpg on mixed urban and motorway journeys. This green conscience in me I have had for most of my life.

Another angle on slow driving is the concept of an ‘average speed’. Studies of congestion on motorways have identified slowing traffic down as a way to ease congestion and make journeys safer and quicker. Although counter intuitive, when a journey is examined as a whole, it will reveal a pattern of ‘rush to wait’. Cars rush away from traffic lights in cities even when they can see that they will have to stop at the next set. Drivers on country roads will overtake the car in front at the first opportunity, even though there may be a tractor or herd of cows around the next bend.

Finally, another aspect of advance slow driving skills is not prejudging a vehicle’s speed. If following a bus travelling at the maximum legal speed, it is not necessary to overtake it, even though ‘it’s a bus!’ It is the nature of buses to stop regularly so keeping a distance behind to enable a safe overtake when it stops, is simple. Passing at a slow speed is obligatory since we know passengers step out of buses and may wish to cross the road straight away, appearing suddenly from behind the large bus. The same goes for lorries and vans. The advanced slow driver will find out what speed these vehicles are doing or likely to be doing at the next hill, before making an unnecessary overtake. Such vehicles have limited views immediately behind, so tail gating will not only create a dangerous queue of cars, but for yourself when the lorry or van stops unexpectedly.

In summary, I would not criticise other road users unless I have interviewed them and found out what on earth is going through their heads. Expect them to be mad as hares and you won’t be surprised, pull back let them be silly and continue your journey.

At slower speeds you are less likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists. There is no argument to driver faster and start swearing at others.

Look at the maximum speed limit for the road you are driving on and match the speed of your vehicle to it when it is safe to do so. Ignore those with money to pay fines, don’t mind loosing their licence and are willing to risk killing children, queuing up behind you.

Ease your foot off the accelerator and brake to maintain the maximum average and legal speed. This will reduce the length of time you have to allow for your journey, the cost of fuel and reduce emissions proportionately.

And finally, if it’s a lorry it might not need to overtake it. If it’s a snail, you will.