Cutting down on the number of road users

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

Why is this idea important?

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

Motorway congestion

Police Patrols should issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who fail to obey the Highway Code by driving on the left except when overtaking. Basically, if there is a gap in front of you then you should be safely moving to the left.

Ban lorries from lane 2 on dual carriageways and both outside lanes on motorways. Make the minimum speed for cars and other vehicles that can use motorways the same as the maximum speed for lorries.

Remind van drivers that their speed limit is 60mph and therefore should be banned from lane 3 on 3 lane moroways.

Variable speed restictions work to increase FLOW of traffic, so would minimum speed at certain times of the day

If vehicles cannot maintain this minimum speed, even uphill, then they should be banned during certain busy periods.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Police Patrols should issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who fail to obey the Highway Code by driving on the left except when overtaking. Basically, if there is a gap in front of you then you should be safely moving to the left.

Ban lorries from lane 2 on dual carriageways and both outside lanes on motorways. Make the minimum speed for cars and other vehicles that can use motorways the same as the maximum speed for lorries.

Remind van drivers that their speed limit is 60mph and therefore should be banned from lane 3 on 3 lane moroways.

Variable speed restictions work to increase FLOW of traffic, so would minimum speed at certain times of the day

If vehicles cannot maintain this minimum speed, even uphill, then they should be banned during certain busy periods.

 

 

Cycle to Work Scheme – Transfer of Ownership

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Why is this idea important?

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Remove councils and transport for london control of local road

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Why is this idea important?

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Better ways to reduce traffic than congestion charge

Abolish the congestion charge.

Instead:

– Enforce parking restrictions more rigorously and fairly with more focus on vehicles which are actually causing obstruction and double fines for those who double park

– Increase car removal vehicles and car pounds

– Provide cheap park and ride facilities

– Restrict deliveries to midnight to 6 am 

– Ban large lorries from central London and provide lorry depots around the M25 for the transfer of goods to smaller lorries and vans.

– Allow shared taxi schemes

– More and better cycle facilities

– Air conditioning and/or better ventilation on the tube and buses

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the congestion charge.

Instead:

– Enforce parking restrictions more rigorously and fairly with more focus on vehicles which are actually causing obstruction and double fines for those who double park

– Increase car removal vehicles and car pounds

– Provide cheap park and ride facilities

– Restrict deliveries to midnight to 6 am 

– Ban large lorries from central London and provide lorry depots around the M25 for the transfer of goods to smaller lorries and vans.

– Allow shared taxi schemes

– More and better cycle facilities

– Air conditioning and/or better ventilation on the tube and buses

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.

Stop building High Speed 2 (HS2) rail system

 

High Speed 2 fixes a problem that will have gone by the time it is complete.  It is driven by the forecast growth in rail traffic extrapolated from today’s rail usage.

The forecasts ignore the increased use of business meetings via video conferencing – this market is growing by 15% per annum during a recession.  Business leaders buy high fare tickets and travel in the rush hour.  The use of video will hit HS2 high revenue custom as well as reduce congestion directlt affecting the HS2 business case.  IDC indicate that many companies are raiding their travel budgets (ie less travel) to pay for video system installations in order to reduce costs.  Why is the government keen to invest in 1960's Japanese imported railway technology when we should be moving to a knowledge economy.  The extension of optical fibre and video across the country will benefit a wider set of people than HS2 and the technology used become part of University programs.

HS2 will increase long haul traffic at Heathrow (source Bowgroup) as more people can reach Heathrow more rapidly to use for long haul flights.  Long haul planes are noisier than short haul planes. 

Euston is the wrong terminus!  Euston and the other Victorian feats of engineering were built when the centre of London was near Westminster (actually Green Park).  However, the commercial district of London has moved East (London 2012, Docklands, Thames Gateway) making Stratford, Liverpool Street and Waterloo the closest major termini to the London CBD.  This has been revealed by the failure of HS1 which terminates at St. Pancras.  Commuters arriving in this part of London find few commercial opportunities and join the slow and over crowded Underground in order to go South and East

The Network Rail business case for HS2 shows a payback of 60 years!  The government must have better uses for taxpayers money.  

Why is this idea important?

 

High Speed 2 fixes a problem that will have gone by the time it is complete.  It is driven by the forecast growth in rail traffic extrapolated from today’s rail usage.

The forecasts ignore the increased use of business meetings via video conferencing – this market is growing by 15% per annum during a recession.  Business leaders buy high fare tickets and travel in the rush hour.  The use of video will hit HS2 high revenue custom as well as reduce congestion directlt affecting the HS2 business case.  IDC indicate that many companies are raiding their travel budgets (ie less travel) to pay for video system installations in order to reduce costs.  Why is the government keen to invest in 1960's Japanese imported railway technology when we should be moving to a knowledge economy.  The extension of optical fibre and video across the country will benefit a wider set of people than HS2 and the technology used become part of University programs.

HS2 will increase long haul traffic at Heathrow (source Bowgroup) as more people can reach Heathrow more rapidly to use for long haul flights.  Long haul planes are noisier than short haul planes. 

Euston is the wrong terminus!  Euston and the other Victorian feats of engineering were built when the centre of London was near Westminster (actually Green Park).  However, the commercial district of London has moved East (London 2012, Docklands, Thames Gateway) making Stratford, Liverpool Street and Waterloo the closest major termini to the London CBD.  This has been revealed by the failure of HS1 which terminates at St. Pancras.  Commuters arriving in this part of London find few commercial opportunities and join the slow and over crowded Underground in order to go South and East

The Network Rail business case for HS2 shows a payback of 60 years!  The government must have better uses for taxpayers money.  

Scrap differential speed limits for goods vehicles

Scrap the different speed limits that apply to goods vehicles over 2T and 7.5T on all classes of road. The speed limit will be harmonised for all vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the different speed limits that apply to goods vehicles over 2T and 7.5T on all classes of road. The speed limit will be harmonised for all vehicles.

FREE UP M25 CAR PARK

The daily congestion on M25 is costing the economy millions in lost man hours and resources. It is higly unlikely that the road widening program is ever going to keep up with increased capacity demands.  The imposition of  modest level of toll charges  on the same principal as an oyster type card might  be a possible solution .

 

Why is this idea important?

The daily congestion on M25 is costing the economy millions in lost man hours and resources. It is higly unlikely that the road widening program is ever going to keep up with increased capacity demands.  The imposition of  modest level of toll charges  on the same principal as an oyster type card might  be a possible solution .

 

Ringfence motoring taxation for transport

All taxation from fuel excise duty, road tax, road traffic offence fines and VAT on fuel and cars should be ring fenced for transport projects and maintenance, this would see increased investment in both public transport and our roads. To build railway lines for the 21st century, direct and safe cycle routes where people want to go in all our towns and cities, railway system where freight can be moved off of our roads and motorways where HGVs are disproportionatly involved in accidents, and subsidise rail travel to make it so that people can afford to travel be it as individuals or families to where they want to go at the time they wish to go.

Why is this idea important?

All taxation from fuel excise duty, road tax, road traffic offence fines and VAT on fuel and cars should be ring fenced for transport projects and maintenance, this would see increased investment in both public transport and our roads. To build railway lines for the 21st century, direct and safe cycle routes where people want to go in all our towns and cities, railway system where freight can be moved off of our roads and motorways where HGVs are disproportionatly involved in accidents, and subsidise rail travel to make it so that people can afford to travel be it as individuals or families to where they want to go at the time they wish to go.

Cyclists should be insured and carry a registration plate

These supposed 'green' crusaders are clogging up streets in every city across the UK, causing more problems than they solve by slowing up automotive traffic. They aren't the solution, they are part of the problem.

Why is this idea important?

These supposed 'green' crusaders are clogging up streets in every city across the UK, causing more problems than they solve by slowing up automotive traffic. They aren't the solution, they are part of the problem.

End the School Run Traffic Chaos Nightmare

End the “School Run” Nightmare of local traffic chaos around schools and nearby residential roads caused by inconsiderate parents taking their children to school by car.

Parking wardens should patrol local streets during such times and parents leaving unattended cars inconsiderately should face hefty fines, in extreme cases removal of the vehicle if causing an obstruction 

Better still Implement an "Orange" school busses system similar to the USA with frequent stopping places to enable children to join at which point they pay a fare.

For children who live closer encourage walking and cycling to school.

Why is this idea important?

End the “School Run” Nightmare of local traffic chaos around schools and nearby residential roads caused by inconsiderate parents taking their children to school by car.

Parking wardens should patrol local streets during such times and parents leaving unattended cars inconsiderately should face hefty fines, in extreme cases removal of the vehicle if causing an obstruction 

Better still Implement an "Orange" school busses system similar to the USA with frequent stopping places to enable children to join at which point they pay a fare.

For children who live closer encourage walking and cycling to school.

Digital radio

I have spent thousands of pounds on FM radio equipment which will be made useless by the Bill sneaked in at the end of the last Parliament.

Repeal the legislation at the first opportunity.

Why is this idea important?

I have spent thousands of pounds on FM radio equipment which will be made useless by the Bill sneaked in at the end of the last Parliament.

Repeal the legislation at the first opportunity.

Remove restrictions on ‘undertaking’ on motorways

Allow traffic to overtake on the left on motorways / multi-lane highways, subject to normal overtaking rules about it being safe to do so and not cutting in.

Why is this idea important?

Allow traffic to overtake on the left on motorways / multi-lane highways, subject to normal overtaking rules about it being safe to do so and not cutting in.