Skip to main content

No longer a victimless crime

Some crimes are so commonplace that no one considers them to be so. Some crimes are committed by so many people that the line between criminal act and normal behaviour is obscured. In the eighties everyone taped albums for their mates, in the noughties no one thought anything of illegally downloading. Dodging tax is a national sport, paying your builder cash in hand, working for a few notes on the golf club bar to help out. It's all fine, isn't it? It's not like anyone gets hurt, as such. No one's going to get arrested over an eighth of weed, these days even a bit of cocaine can be overlooked. When everyone's doing it, is it even a crime any more?

(Before I can be accused of climbing on my moral high horse, I should point out that I have committed all these acts, and far worse, I'm not judging here, more illustrating a point)

I point this out because this week, something else commonplace, something nearly everyone does, crossed the line into criminal act. Not as blatant as snorting a line in a pub toilet, perhaps, but with just as serious real-world consequences.

This week, Philip Barlow, the Inner South London coroner, made history by ruling that air pollution was the cause of death, in 2013, of Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine year old girl whose walk to school exposed her to nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels far above the legal limits. In short, Ella was killed by drivers. Not any one in particular, but every car, motorbike, van and lorry that clogged the roads of Lewisham was a contributing factor to her tragically early death from acute respiratory failure.

No, no, calm down, I'm not blaming everyone who drives. I'm not accusing you of being a killer because you commute to work or drop the kids off at school. What I am saying, however, is that we now have written into English law vehicle emissions as a contributory factor in the death of a child. It's one hell of a precedent, and it should be the spark of a very serious conversation that we as a nation have to have.

Because we don't talk enough about the down-sides of cars, and I understand why. Everyone loves their car, it's a space that's yours, that signifies freedom and boundless possibility; learning to drive is a rite of passage, and they're just so damned convenient. I understand the emotional attachment people feel towards their pollution-belching death-boxes, and it's this that's stopping us from discussing the situation properly. In the same way meat-eaters shift uneasily at pictures of slaughterhouses, and frequent flyers can erase anything they've ever heard about jet-fuel emissions, drivers can be aware of the consequences in abstract, but no-one really feels that it applies to them. Much as no down-loader ever thought they were robbing an artist of royalties, nobody shoving some gak up their nose ever thought of the brutal conditions that coca is farmed in.

This lack of discussion is deadly. The second part of the coroner''s ruling found that a lack of information regarding Lewisham's regular breaches of British, WHO and EU air quality requirements was also a contributing factor. Simply put, Ella's Mum didn't see the harm in her walk to school, because she didn't know how bad it was. The family lived just 30m from the South Circular Road, there was literally no escape for them from the heavily polluted air. And for as long as the Government, scared of angering drivers, because God forbid we should do that, continues to sweep the matter under the carpet, more people will die.

Most urban areas have had illegal levels of Nitrogen dioxide since 2010, and the misguided widespread switch to diesel. Worldwide, air pollution from vehicle emissions is a contributory factor in 7 million early deaths. And yet we tolerate it, because driving.

I am not saying stop driving. That would be unreasonable in the extreme. The world, for better or worse, is built for cars, and we'd need a pretty major overhaul of transport, service and retail infrastructure before that was feasible. What I am saying is that it's time to start weaning ourselves off them, that it's time to have a conversation about whether we're prepared to tolerate their impact on our environment and health, and about what can be done to mitigate that. I'm saying that it's time to stop unthinkingly assuming that they have to be a part of your life, the default for any journey, because even if everyone does it it is, as of now, potentially, legally, a cause of death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The last day of the county season

 Look, I never claimed to be cool. As a a cliched middle aged male, I have a number of interests which, if not exactly niche, are perhaps not freighted with glamour. Not exactly ones to set the heart racing. I yearn not for wakeboarding, my cocaine with minor celebrities days are well and truly behind me, you are unlikely to catch me writing graffiti under a motorway bridge. I do cycle, but only as a way of getting from point A to point B, you are unlikely, you will be relieved to hear, to see me purchasing lycra and or/doing triathlons. I like going for a nice walk. I'm fond of a good book. I have a deep attachment to county cricket. Yes, that's right, county, not even the international stuff which briefly captures the nation's fleeting attention once in a blue moon. County cricket. Somerset CCC to be precise, though I'll watch / listen to any of it. The unpopular part of an unpopular sport. Well, that's the public perception, the much maligned two men and a dog. N...

D-Day Dos and Don'ts for Dunces

Oh Rishi. Lad.  You have, by now, almost certainly become aware of the Prime Minister(for the time being)'s latest gaffe, as he returned home early from D-Day commemoration events in France, in order to "concentrate on an interview" which, as it turns out was already pre-recorded. There's been a fair bit of outrage, the word "disrespectful" is being bandied about a lot.  The word I'd use is "stupid". It is often said of the Brits that we have no religion but that the NHS is the closest thing we have to one. This, I think, is incorrect, because the fetishisation of WWII is to my mind, far closer to being our object of national veneration.  I understand why, last time we were relevant, fairly straightforwardly evil oppo, quite nice to be the good guys for a change, I absolutely get why the British public worship at the altar of a conflict which, I note, was a very long time ago. I think it's a bit daft, personally, but I understand it. So you...

The three most tedious food debates on the internet.

 I very much only have myself to blame. One of the less heralded aspects of running a business is that one is, regrettably, obliged to maintain a social media presence, it's just expected. And, if I have to do it, I'm going to do it very much in my own voice, as I don't tend to have time to stop and think when I'm bunging something on Insta. It seems to have worked okay so far. But, as a man better versed on the online world than he would prefer, I should have known better than to stick up a picture of our bread rolls, fresh out of the oven. In my defence, I did preface said picture by saying "one of the most tedious debates on the internet is what these are called...". Doubtless you've seen the argument somewhere, it's one of the workaday tropes that shithouse FB pages use to drive engagement. Need a few thousand clicks to raise the profile of your godawful local radio station/page about how everything was better in the past/shelter for confused cats?...