Dubai is paying people not to break the law

Drivers offered prizes for good behaviour.

It's hardly common practice for authorities to offer prize money for staying within the limits of the law - but this is exactly what's happening in Dubai.

Drivers who go 12 months without a traffic violation will now become eligible for prizes - including cars. There are about one million driving licences registered in Dubai, and only 500 prizes, and therefore, as the head of Dubai Police traffic department Maj Gen Al Zaffin told The National, "there might need to be a selection process based on the number of people who will be eligible”. Might. But as atrocious as driving in Dubai might currently be, there are high hopes for the scheme:

"[W]e are hoping it will reduce accidents by 10 to 20 per cent in the long run,” he said.

It's an odd, nudge-policy-like thing for Dubai authorities to do - but a quick scout for relevant studies throws up some evidence that supports the idea.

One study in the US found that speeding was virtually eliminated amongst drivers who were offered $25  a week not to exceed a speed limit.

Here's a summary, via

The study placed a GPS tracker in eight cars and loaned to 50 different drivers for a week. A control group of 10 drove the cars as they did every day and their speed was monitored.

Another 20 were warned every time they exceeded the speed limit.

The final 20 drivers were also warned when they exceeded the speed limit but additionally told they would get a $25 reward at the end of the week if they didn't exceed the speed limit. They lost three cents for travelling between 3-8 miles per hour (5-13kmh) over the limit and six cents for infringements above that level, the website reports. Any speeding tickets they accrued stood as an additional penalty.

Each time the driver completed a trip, they were given a report showing any penalties they had accrued.

According to the researchers, the very clear (if small) penalties and rewards system made motorists determined to "win the game" - watching their driving far more carefully.

Insurance companies already operate a rewards system for careful drivers - but this is the first time a goverment has. It will be interesting to see if it works.

Cars vs camels in Dubai. Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.