This month on Which? Conversation: January 2022

It would not have been too difficult to design the automatic control to avoid the problem you have described, Em. I sometimes wonder if car designers are the brightest bulbs.

I dip my lights for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and many do the same round here.

“I sometimes wonder if car designers are the brightest bulbs.” I think they have done a pretty good job in making cars far safer and in giving driver assistance. I’m not so sure about stylists, but then we buy what they produce, don’t we?

Em’s given you one example of the need for more work in improving a feature and I could give others, albeit not relating to car headlights. Perhaps we should not be so blinded by achievements that we cannot see opportunities for improvement.

Yes we do somehow Malcolm which is not all the time good really.
Some of the new cars they have got out now their headlights are really dim and mainbeam is even worse.
I’ve upgraded my headlights because they weren’t bright enough on the road .
I do sometimes have people flashing me but I’m willing to deal with that because as long as I can see the road that’s the main thing isn’t it ?

While it is good that cyclists now have access to reasonably bright lights, on the other hand I occasionally encounter cyclists at night with such dazzling pulsing flashing lights that it is almost impossible to pinpoint their actual path – not a big safety improvement.

It would certainly be worth review but, if the original standard was based on visual performance requirements, as I believe it was, then it should still be valid. Basic visual response has not changed. Just as street lighting light distribution glare requirements have been essentially the same for years.

Many modern headlights (HID and LED) are much brighter than incandescent lamps, so there a clear need for review. Concern has been expressed since these headlights were introduced. I had a car with ‘dim-dip’ headlights for use in areas with street lighting. These made cars easier to see than those driven on sidelights but did not cause nuisance.

I am not suggesting that high intensity dipped lights are a hazard but they can make driving in built-up areas at night a less pleasant experience.

I have seen a significant improvement in the past ten years and the ongoing move towards LED lights on new cars will help.

My car turns on the headlights/sidelights/tail lights briefly when it is unlocked in the dark which makes it very easy to check the bulbs. It’s worth replacing any blackened bulbs before they fail.

I used to let people know if they had a light not working, for example neighbours and the drivers of cars that followed me into a supermarket car park. In one case both tail lights were not working leaving only the number plate lights and the response from the driver was that he already knew. Thankfully some drivers are grateful for being informed.

Perhaps daytime running lights are sufficiently effective to allow a driver to get home if a headlight fails, but I can see merit in immobilisation of a vehicle within say 24 hours.

With some makes and models of vehicle, replacing a headlamp bulb is not a simple job that can be done at the side of the road, for example if the front bumper has to be removed. It’s another example of rotten design.

I was grateful to be informed when I was driving to work in my very first car. I stopped at traffic lights and someone tapped on the window to tell me I had no back lights.

In the night, someone had stolen both sets of back lights, so I was driving with no indicators or brake lights. Luckily, hand signals then kept me out of trouble.

These days our cars tell us if a light is not working. Both are really difficult to get at, but my small hand can change them.

It’s usually the bulb that ‘goes’, Alfa, not the whole light. 🙁

I carry a set of spare bulbs and it was easy to replace a tail light but I have not yet had to replace a headlight bulb in my present car. It used to be mandatory to carry spare bulbs when visiting France but the requirement was dropped, presumably because there is not much point in carrying bulbs if they cannot easily be replaced.

Having been an engineer in the motor industry for nearly forty years, I can say that it can be dangerous for occupants to immobilise a car for any reason. What if the driver is a woman on her own at night, and the car is immobile, no mobile signal? Women in the USA have been attacked in such circumstances. And occasionally, men too. It could happen here.

I would imagine there are very few households that will not have to make substantial changes in their standard of living over the next few months and for many it could take them into a different condition where further economies are virtually impossible. For many families their unavoidable expenditures are such a high percentage of their incomes that there is little scope to make meaningful adjustments along the lines of the simplistic “heat or eat” slogan; for many it is not a binary question but an imperative on both fronts with severe risks to their health and well-being.

It is certain that there will be a severe recession as discretionary spending has to be reined in and this is as worrying to the whole economy as the inflation of prices itself and the two trends will compound on each other. Spreading the impact of these forces across the economy equitably will be a major challenge for the government but it is their duty to provide relief where it is most needed and if necessary to curb or remove indiscriminate subsidies where they are not justified. Pain might have to be inflicted but it should only be applied where it will do the least harm. I personally believe there is scope to resolve this dilemma and it will be a true test of the concept of levelling up.

At present there are many people dependent on food banks. They are unlikely to be able to benefit from buying packs of 24 toilet rolls or other multi-buys to save money.

It’s well known that the poor are easy targets for exploitation and lack of education contributes to poverty. I one lived in a rented flat when house hunting and discovered that the landlord was charging me approximately four times the maximum price for reselling electricity, for a flat with electric heating. Those in adjoining flats were not aware that they were being fleeced.

Some of those who live in poverty have brought this on themselves by profligate spending but there are many children born into poverty, and they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

We can all help by donating items to food banks, including discounted toilet rolls. https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-help/emergency-food/non-food-items/

Help for those genuinely in need should be targeted. This must come from the taxpayer. One place that extra money could be taken from is by abolishing the pension contribution extra tax relief given to higher-rate earners.

I personally feel ashamed that a society that my generation has helped to create has so many reliant on foodbanks and that there is so little I can do about it.

Some people I know generalise negatively [and probably ignorantly] about the behaviours and lifestyles of the people driven to feed their families from the random stocks of a community fridge or foodbank, and seem to suggest that these resources are not necessary, or should operate under strict rules and procedures to prevent unwarranted relief.

My goodness, these are the attitudes of the Victorian era where people were punished for their poverty. Sadly, I also hear critical comments about the motives of the good people that give their time and energy to helping those on the bottom rung of a very long ladder.

I am perplexed that a society that has enjoyed unimaginable good fortune over the last fifty years and had the benefit of an unprecedented extent of higher education is acting in this way. I confess to not being able to understand it.

I feel ashamed too, but thankfully I don’t know anyone who criticises the efforts of others.

If I could change one thing it would be to stop encouraging people to get into debt.

Perish the thought that we should return to Victorian values. Apart from donating food and money, there is a lot we can still do to help those unfortunate people to help themselves.

”The awakening of human consciousness is no longer a luxury – it is a necessity for the survival of our species. It is up to each of us as individuals to embody the state of aware presence, and thus rise above the egoic mind and it’s dysfunction.

When a sufficient number of humans undergo this transformation, this will bring healing and sanity to our planet.”

Eckhart Tolle

I suspect you are an exception, in donating a significant amount to charity.

We need targeted support from the state for those in genuine need. It may be difficult to identify those people but the effort needs to be made to use scarce money wisely.

“Scarce” money? But we’re the fifth wealthiest country in the world. Not sure money is very scarce.

I think everybody, of whatever personal wealth status, believes the disposable money they have is “scarce”. The distribution of wealth in the UK remains very inequitable and that is what gives rise to the need for basic welfare and income support. It has been suggested that there is a role for the ancient form of tithing whereby those of higher means give a percentage of their income [10% is usually indicated] to welfare purposes, but the modern taxation system addresses that.

According to CGAP [the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy], people and companies in the UK give about £13 billion a year to charities. That sounds like a huge amount of money but, first, it is a drop in the ocean relative to the needs for relieving poverty and providing basic welfare; second, it is scattered among a vast range of charitable organisations so is not targeted to where it might be perceived to do most good.

The split of giving between the various charitable sectors is not easy to discover but, according to CAF [the Charities Aid Foundation], the most popular cause for charitable giving was animal welfare with 27% of donors giving to such charities. CAF also found that the overall number of people giving to charity has dropped but those who are giving are giving more.

Some recipients of charitable and philanthropic gifts, while being worthy causes and fulfilling the requirements for charitable status, do nothing whatsoever to promote human well-being or relieve hardship but absorb a considerable proportion of charitable giving [and state tax relief] which might not actually relieve the state of any direct expenditure or provide complementary services in support of state intervention in personal welfare. Perhaps this should be reviewed.

It is a fundamental principle that people can decide for themselves where to dispose their excess wealth and obtain whatever tax advantages are available for that or ensure that their chosen beneficiary can recover their tax contribution through the Gift Aid process. In this respect all charities are equal, whatever their purposes, even though we might feel that some do better, or more meaningful, things than others. Some charities, such as some private schools for example, are required to provide certain levels of public good in return for their charitable status [e.g. provide specialist facilities for state education pupils or scholarships for children from deprived backgrounds] but this is all a bit hit and miss.

The upshot of all this is that there is a continuing need for practical and financial relief so that every citizen can live decently and safely, be satisfactorily fed and clothed, and have the essential necessities of civilised living according to their needs. Relief should retain people’s privacy and dignity. Within government policy there is still an overhang of the Poor Law principle of deterrence – providing a basic regime that is so unpleasant that people will not wish to enter or remain within its scope.

The political quandary which every government has had to wrestle with is how to provide sufficient sustenance without encouraging dependency as another community aim is to encourage people to become self-sufficient through employment or by support from their own family resources.

I believe there is a role for welfare provision that is independent of the state because it can be delivered better and is likely to be more responsive to needs. It also taps into voluntary funding and practical support which would otherwise be unaffordable if state-provided. Moreover, in theory, it reflects society’s evaluation of the comparative priority of needs. But whether finer tuning of the charitable structure and the prioritisation of certain needs should be undertaken is a controversial point.

Inadvertently, John, you have made an interesting point.

The split of giving between the various charitable sectors is not easy to discover but, according to CAF [the Charities Aid Foundation], the most popular cause for charitable giving was animal welfare with 27% of donors giving to such charities.

There are approximately 169.000 registered charities in England and Wales as of 2021 which, between them, reap around £49bn annually. I’m involved with some but the major concern I have is that of duplication.

Many serve almost identical causes, but what is even more interesting is the number of employees they have. The Islamic Centre Edgware had approximately 47.4 thousand employees working in England and Wales as of March 2021, making it the charity with the highest number of employees. Sheffield African Caribbean Mental Health Association Limited and Save the Children International had the second and third-highest number of employees at 36.5 and 17.06 thousand employees respectively.

Of perhaps even greater concern is the percentage of income spent on their charitable aims. A Derbyshire charity – the National Hereditary Breast Cancer Helpline – was warned after it emerged that the organisation spent just 3 per cent (around £27,000) of its total expenditure on charitable activities in 2014-15. Over £800,000 – went on “fundraising and other expenses”.

Curiously, it appears that the larger the charity the less it spends on its charitable aims. 91% of charities are run entirely by volunteers. And many charities duplicate entirely the work done by other charities or, in the case of some like the NSPCC, do very little other than pass on cases to Social Services.

Ian – I share your concerns. I dislike the wasteful duplication of charitable effort but there is no control over that and it is left to people to judge which good causes deserve their charitable giving. I am also annoyed by the competitive nature of numerous charities. Every charity believes it has an entitlement to eternal existence and most spend far too much — in my opinion — on self-preservation.

Many well-known charities have enormous funds that generate vast income streams much of which is not required for the level of activity undertaken so it just keeps accumulating, but they don’t stop appealing for more money from the public in donations and legacies.

Over the recent pre-Christmas period we received something like three kilos of mailshots and magazine inserts from charities; that was in addition to advertisements included in the contents of publications and the amount of airtime on various TV channels.

I presume the £49 billion received every year by charities includes legacies, bequests endowments, grants, Gift Aid payments, interest on investments, and other miscellaneous income from trading and rents. There seems to be rough agreement between CAF and CGAP that donations annually account for something of the order of £12-13 billion.

I cannot comment on the activities of individual charities because I do not know enough about most of them. I support a select handful of human welfare charities and have satisfied myself that they are carrying out worthwhile work, usually in areas or with cases that are difficult for the statutory agencies to deal with or with problems that other charities choose not to engage with. I only support charities which benefit citizens in the UK. I am a member of various organisations which happen to have charitable status but I don’t consider my membership subscriptions as charitable giving even though I make a Gift Aid declaration.

I regret that some charities make what I regard as misleading statements or suggestions in their appeal literature. There is one for which we occasionally get an appeal that provides support for injured members of the fire and rescue services in the form of comforts in the event that they have to be hospitalised following an injury during their work or during convalescence. It claims that workers need these benefits because they are not adequately assisted following an accident. I was under the impression that these emergency services had excellent support services in place, both officially and through the trade unions, for when any members suffered as a result of their employment so I question why a special charity needs to exist for this group of employees. It is impossible to detach sentimental and emotional appeals from charity fundraising and it is invidious to question the necessity for many charities as it smacks of a lack of compassion.

Perhaps it is right for the government to refrain from providing additional financial resources and direct welfare and poverty relief when there is clearly an abundance of charity wealth available within the UK; it could however promote a more equitable and prioritised distribution of that funding.

John Ward says: Today 02:30

I dislike the wasteful duplication of charitable effort but there is no control over that and it is left to people to judge which good causes deserve their charitable giving. I am also annoyed by the competitive nature of numerous charities. Every charity believes it has an entitlement to eternal existence and most spend far too much — in my opinion — on self-preservation.

I agree with every word, John. I’ve long felt local charities are often those that work most conscientiously in pursuit of their aims while the very large ones seem far too concerned with feathering their own nests , as it were.

Nice to see, however, that the RSPCA had an effective council of trustees, at least, even if, by the Mail’s rather dubious standards, they don’t exactly share the best priorities.