Presumption of innocence with vehicle offences

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

Why is this idea important?

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Change VED to insurance

Scrap VED on private cars. Introduce a basic third-party injury insurance cost based on car/risk profile.

Investigate a simil;ar approach to commercial vehicles (not so clear as I write this)

Why is this idea important?

Scrap VED on private cars. Introduce a basic third-party injury insurance cost based on car/risk profile.

Investigate a simil;ar approach to commercial vehicles (not so clear as I write this)

Remove the prohibition on Right Hand Sidecars

I would like to remove the prohibition on motorcycle sicecar combinations with the motorcycle on the left. There is no similar prohibition on left hand drive cars being used on the public road, and there is a very useful range of these vehicles that are ideal for forestry and agricultural workers as they have optional two wheel drive to cope with off road conditions and are far less expensive to buy and run and less damaging to the environment than a typical 4×4 vehicle. Due to the limited size of the right hand drive market globally (other RHD countries dont have this restriction) the manufacturers find it uneconomic to produce a RHD version.

Currently the vehicles can be used but cannot be driven on a public road to get from site to site or from home to work (or vice versa), meaning that another vehicle and trailer must be used in addition to the combination, or that a larger 4×4 must be used at all times.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to remove the prohibition on motorcycle sicecar combinations with the motorcycle on the left. There is no similar prohibition on left hand drive cars being used on the public road, and there is a very useful range of these vehicles that are ideal for forestry and agricultural workers as they have optional two wheel drive to cope with off road conditions and are far less expensive to buy and run and less damaging to the environment than a typical 4×4 vehicle. Due to the limited size of the right hand drive market globally (other RHD countries dont have this restriction) the manufacturers find it uneconomic to produce a RHD version.

Currently the vehicles can be used but cannot be driven on a public road to get from site to site or from home to work (or vice versa), meaning that another vehicle and trailer must be used in addition to the combination, or that a larger 4×4 must be used at all times.

Make life easier for motor vechcles AND save money

Get rid of:

  • Speed bumps – high cost, but most drivers pass over them without problem – and they can cause noise and pollution;
  • Raised junctions / speed cushions – make no practical difference to anyone, road user or pedestriains, but must cost a fortune ( see this link for what these things are: http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/parking_rubbish_and_streets/general_street_information/road_and_traffic_safety/traffic_calming_measures.aspx )
  • The sea of traffic signs and street furniture;
  • Parking regulations, where parking wouldn't disturb anyone;
  • MOTs every year – two yearly works fine in other European countries;
  • Car tax discs, get the money from petrol tax, on a tax neutral basis- save on the administration;
  • Traffic lights at minor junctions – use white paint for a mini roundabout – cheaper and traffic flows more efficiently. How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?
  • Red traffic lights outside of the rush hour, on less busy roads – have them flash amber, signalling proceed with caution. Again works well elsewhere in the world, why not here? How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of:

  • Speed bumps – high cost, but most drivers pass over them without problem – and they can cause noise and pollution;
  • Raised junctions / speed cushions – make no practical difference to anyone, road user or pedestriains, but must cost a fortune ( see this link for what these things are: http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/parking_rubbish_and_streets/general_street_information/road_and_traffic_safety/traffic_calming_measures.aspx )
  • The sea of traffic signs and street furniture;
  • Parking regulations, where parking wouldn't disturb anyone;
  • MOTs every year – two yearly works fine in other European countries;
  • Car tax discs, get the money from petrol tax, on a tax neutral basis- save on the administration;
  • Traffic lights at minor junctions – use white paint for a mini roundabout – cheaper and traffic flows more efficiently. How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?
  • Red traffic lights outside of the rush hour, on less busy roads – have them flash amber, signalling proceed with caution. Again works well elsewhere in the world, why not here? How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?

B+E Trailer test = labour money maker

A test designed to improve safety by "ensuring" a minimum standard of driver competence is actually only a test resulting in additional cash flow via the DSA.  Either amend the reulation to apply to anyone wishing to pull anything irrespective of the date on which the car test was passed (safety across the board and equity) or repeal the regulation.

Why is this idea important?

A test designed to improve safety by "ensuring" a minimum standard of driver competence is actually only a test resulting in additional cash flow via the DSA.  Either amend the reulation to apply to anyone wishing to pull anything irrespective of the date on which the car test was passed (safety across the board and equity) or repeal the regulation.

Increase motorway speed limits to 80 or 90mph

Speed limits are exactly that – limits. When learning to drive you are constantly informed about this and told to drive at a reasonable speed – either at the limit or below. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the limit of otherwise well maintained, long and straight roads, free of potholes, well sign posted but with archaic speed LIMITS of 70mph – that we call motorways. We all know that modern cars can travel at speeds probably double this but what makes modern motoring different to when I was driving as a young lad is that cars are better maintained and, for example, can easily drive at high speed without steering wheel judder; not being able to brake properly (old Mini, for example); presence of ABS almost as standard these days etc etc.

If common sense prevailed, limits should be 80 or 90 (mph) on motorways and the decision of what speed to drive left to the driver (taking into consideration road conditions, weather, number of cars on the road etc.) I appreciate that faster speeds mean more CO2 but at 3am on the M5 going south to Devon, why is it that 70mph is even a moderately acceptable limit!?!?!?!

Why is this idea important?

Speed limits are exactly that – limits. When learning to drive you are constantly informed about this and told to drive at a reasonable speed – either at the limit or below. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the limit of otherwise well maintained, long and straight roads, free of potholes, well sign posted but with archaic speed LIMITS of 70mph – that we call motorways. We all know that modern cars can travel at speeds probably double this but what makes modern motoring different to when I was driving as a young lad is that cars are better maintained and, for example, can easily drive at high speed without steering wheel judder; not being able to brake properly (old Mini, for example); presence of ABS almost as standard these days etc etc.

If common sense prevailed, limits should be 80 or 90 (mph) on motorways and the decision of what speed to drive left to the driver (taking into consideration road conditions, weather, number of cars on the road etc.) I appreciate that faster speeds mean more CO2 but at 3am on the M5 going south to Devon, why is it that 70mph is even a moderately acceptable limit!?!?!?!

Make MoT tests every two years for newer cars.

MoT tests are annual from the car's third birthday.  But cars today are much more reliable than when this regulation was introduced.  The start point could be changed to year four or five and the tests made every two years until the car was, say ten years old.

Why is this idea important?

MoT tests are annual from the car's third birthday.  But cars today are much more reliable than when this regulation was introduced.  The start point could be changed to year four or five and the tests made every two years until the car was, say ten years old.

Housing, Benefits & Jobs

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Why is this idea important?

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Trading Standards for Insurance policies

I'm a new driver.

I was shocked to get numerous qoutes from various insurance companies of nearly £4000. For a 1.2 clio. Twice the value of the car.

I believe this is extremley unfair on those drivers who are extremly sensible, like me…

I mean, how many 17 or 18 year olds have 4k lying around, and a car. Let alone the cost of petrol with all this tax on it.

I call the government to step in and sort this mess out, either with policies to proove that younger drviers can be sensible, or measures to make sure that 4K is really needed for a small car.

such measures could be a deposit based system, if you crash, you loose your deposit. Simple. I don't buy cinema tickets and rent a dvd instead that evening?

Why is this idea important?

I'm a new driver.

I was shocked to get numerous qoutes from various insurance companies of nearly £4000. For a 1.2 clio. Twice the value of the car.

I believe this is extremley unfair on those drivers who are extremly sensible, like me…

I mean, how many 17 or 18 year olds have 4k lying around, and a car. Let alone the cost of petrol with all this tax on it.

I call the government to step in and sort this mess out, either with policies to proove that younger drviers can be sensible, or measures to make sure that 4K is really needed for a small car.

such measures could be a deposit based system, if you crash, you loose your deposit. Simple. I don't buy cinema tickets and rent a dvd instead that evening?

Scrap the Road Fund Licence

Add the money lost from road fund licence to fuel. The more you use the road, the more you'll pay. This has got to be the way forward, some would say it's the future. The money saved on running the DVLA department and all the red tape that goes with it can be put towards re-paying the national debt. Repayment through cost savings rather than taxation has got to be a vote winner.

Why is this idea important?

Add the money lost from road fund licence to fuel. The more you use the road, the more you'll pay. This has got to be the way forward, some would say it's the future. The money saved on running the DVLA department and all the red tape that goes with it can be put towards re-paying the national debt. Repayment through cost savings rather than taxation has got to be a vote winner.

Display of Tax disc in vehicles.

It seems unimportant, but in this modern age of ANPR police registration plate checking systems and automatic fines for not taxing your car it seems really silly that it's still illegal for someone to "not properly display a tax disc in their vehicle".

Come one Britain, as you change the systems and the way things work moves along with the times please change the laws that refer to those systems.

I for one don't display my Tax disc, it fell off and I'd prefer not to have a big ugly sticker on my windscreen, but the DVLA/Police information system will tell you that i have tax for my car and MOT and insurance, and if i didn't I would get an automatic fine in the post.

So why is that I'm still supposed to display the archaic reciept in my windscreen?

Why is this idea important?

It seems unimportant, but in this modern age of ANPR police registration plate checking systems and automatic fines for not taxing your car it seems really silly that it's still illegal for someone to "not properly display a tax disc in their vehicle".

Come one Britain, as you change the systems and the way things work moves along with the times please change the laws that refer to those systems.

I for one don't display my Tax disc, it fell off and I'd prefer not to have a big ugly sticker on my windscreen, but the DVLA/Police information system will tell you that i have tax for my car and MOT and insurance, and if i didn't I would get an automatic fine in the post.

So why is that I'm still supposed to display the archaic reciept in my windscreen?

Allow rental of hardware which uses software

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

Why is this idea important?

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

Outlaw Car Clamping

Stop lazy retailers and businesses abdicating their responsibility to manage their own property by employing gangsters to immobilise people's vehicles and hold them to ransom for exorbitant fees by using intimitation.

People who own land and wish to exclude people from that land should be made to secure their land by use of adequate fencing and gates/barriers – only then if someone uses their land for illegal parking, they should pursue that person through the courts and charge them with trespass.

 

Car clamping companies fly in the face of civil liberty and should be outlawed with immediate effect.

Why is this idea important?

Stop lazy retailers and businesses abdicating their responsibility to manage their own property by employing gangsters to immobilise people's vehicles and hold them to ransom for exorbitant fees by using intimitation.

People who own land and wish to exclude people from that land should be made to secure their land by use of adequate fencing and gates/barriers – only then if someone uses their land for illegal parking, they should pursue that person through the courts and charge them with trespass.

 

Car clamping companies fly in the face of civil liberty and should be outlawed with immediate effect.

remove maximum speed limits on motorways

The biggest problem with accidents seems to me to be drivers not putting enough distance between themseleves and teh car in front  – not speed.sppeds on motorways are effected by volume of cars.

increase the speed and in theory cars get off the motorway faster , which may help eleviate traffic queues – when there is a queue there is a "natural" speed limit in place – ie – the car in front so why not help us get off the motorways quickly by removing the speed limit.

Why is this idea important?

The biggest problem with accidents seems to me to be drivers not putting enough distance between themseleves and teh car in front  – not speed.sppeds on motorways are effected by volume of cars.

increase the speed and in theory cars get off the motorway faster , which may help eleviate traffic queues – when there is a queue there is a "natural" speed limit in place – ie – the car in front so why not help us get off the motorways quickly by removing the speed limit.

Abolish the SORN system

Remove the requirement to declare a vehicle off the road every 12 months (SORN declaration).  Any vehicle which is not currently taxed should be assumed to be SORN removing an administrative burden from both the motorist and the DVLA.  It would remain an offence to use a vehicle that was untaxed.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to declare a vehicle off the road every 12 months (SORN declaration).  Any vehicle which is not currently taxed should be assumed to be SORN removing an administrative burden from both the motorist and the DVLA.  It would remain an offence to use a vehicle that was untaxed.

New motorists and young drivers driving powerful vehicles


All new motorists, those who have just passed their test (within 3 years) and all young drivers, say under the age of 21 are not allowed to drive vehicles over a certain power output. In a similar way that is in force for all motorcycle riders.

Why is this idea important?


All new motorists, those who have just passed their test (within 3 years) and all young drivers, say under the age of 21 are not allowed to drive vehicles over a certain power output. In a similar way that is in force for all motorcycle riders.