Reduce SMIDSYs

The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.

The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.

We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.

Why is this idea important?

The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.

The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.

We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.

Speed up and simplify the delivery of cycle schemes

The Scottish Government's recently published Cycling Action Plan wants to speed up and simplify a range of measures for the delivery of schemes that benefit cyclists eg road closures and contra-flow cycle lanes.  With very little funding going to local authorities for local transport in the coming years, cycle schemes are likely to be hit financially even if they do represent excellent value for money.  Road closures and contra-flow cycle schemes can benefit cyclists by making journeys in urban areas very quick and give them a time advantage over cars etc.  This can be done at very little cost.  The Scottish Government has not ruled out reforms to the range of traffic management measures which require Traffic Regulation Orders.  We should review what measures require a traffic regulation order in the rest of the UK.   

Why is this idea important?

The Scottish Government's recently published Cycling Action Plan wants to speed up and simplify a range of measures for the delivery of schemes that benefit cyclists eg road closures and contra-flow cycle lanes.  With very little funding going to local authorities for local transport in the coming years, cycle schemes are likely to be hit financially even if they do represent excellent value for money.  Road closures and contra-flow cycle schemes can benefit cyclists by making journeys in urban areas very quick and give them a time advantage over cars etc.  This can be done at very little cost.  The Scottish Government has not ruled out reforms to the range of traffic management measures which require Traffic Regulation Orders.  We should review what measures require a traffic regulation order in the rest of the UK.   

Use of bicycles on pavements

The legislation that banns the use of pedal cycles on footpaths and pavements is in need to be repealed. The argument that cycles cause a danger to footpath users is acknowledged but more serious injury can be caused to cyclists on roads in dangerous areas that are heavily trafficked. This is a 'nanny state' rule and should be binned.

Please support this suggestion

Why is this idea important?

The legislation that banns the use of pedal cycles on footpaths and pavements is in need to be repealed. The argument that cycles cause a danger to footpath users is acknowledged but more serious injury can be caused to cyclists on roads in dangerous areas that are heavily trafficked. This is a 'nanny state' rule and should be binned.

Please support this suggestion

Allow cycling on pavements

In some areas cyclist and pedestrians already share the use of pavements and walkways.  The law could be replaced by one effectively compelling cyclists to respect other pavement users, i.e. cycling dangerously or without due care and attention would be illegal.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas cyclist and pedestrians already share the use of pavements and walkways.  The law could be replaced by one effectively compelling cyclists to respect other pavement users, i.e. cycling dangerously or without due care and attention would be illegal.

To re-balance fair road and pavement use for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles in accident the BIGGER vehicle should always be blamed

In Holland, there is a Simple law that  – in case of an accident the bigger vehicle user is always at fault ie Trucks have to look out for cars, bikes and pedestrians, Cars for Bikes and pedestrians, and bicycles for pedestrians.

This is common sense and makes road and pavements fair for all users. 

It means cars have to drive more carefully around bicycles, and bicycles have to ride carefully around pedestrians. This law would be used in conjunction with repealing the law banning cycling on pavements – and ensures that cyclists respect pedestrians.

Why is this idea important?

In Holland, there is a Simple law that  – in case of an accident the bigger vehicle user is always at fault ie Trucks have to look out for cars, bikes and pedestrians, Cars for Bikes and pedestrians, and bicycles for pedestrians.

This is common sense and makes road and pavements fair for all users. 

It means cars have to drive more carefully around bicycles, and bicycles have to ride carefully around pedestrians. This law would be used in conjunction with repealing the law banning cycling on pavements – and ensures that cyclists respect pedestrians.

Bicycles should be exempt from VAT

Bicycles (pedal bikes, push-bikes, whatever you like to call them) should be given a VAT exemption similar to books, food and children's clothes. Bicycle helmets should also be exempt.

Why is this idea important?

Bicycles (pedal bikes, push-bikes, whatever you like to call them) should be given a VAT exemption similar to books, food and children's clothes. Bicycle helmets should also be exempt.