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.

Pavements for cyclists?

With the drop in the number of pedestrians using our pavements why don’t we allocate the pavement on one side of the road to cyclists and the pavement on the other side of the road to pedestrians?  Obviously this wouldn’t work in busy shopping areas, but on pavements alongside many major roads there is hardly a pedestrian to be seen. 

Why is this idea important?

With the drop in the number of pedestrians using our pavements why don’t we allocate the pavement on one side of the road to cyclists and the pavement on the other side of the road to pedestrians?  Obviously this wouldn’t work in busy shopping areas, but on pavements alongside many major roads there is hardly a pedestrian to be seen. 

Allow cycling on pavements

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

Why is this idea important?

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

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.

Allow “Except Cyclists” on “No entry” signs

Do away with the DfT rule which prevents the siting of "Except Cyclists" signs being mounted along with "No Entry" signs.  This would effectively allow more opportunities for contraflow cycling (where appropriate) in currently one way streets.

Why is this idea important?

Do away with the DfT rule which prevents the siting of "Except Cyclists" signs being mounted along with "No Entry" signs.  This would effectively allow more opportunities for contraflow cycling (where appropriate) in currently one way streets.

no horse power!

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

Why is this idea important?

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

The Traffic Signs Regulations should not have authority over footpaths and cycleways

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Reduce and Simplify Speed Limit

Reduce and simplify speed limits for all vehicles on all roads (possible exception of motorways). For example, all roads within a town area to have a speed limit of 20mph and all roads outside of town area to be 40mph. There would be little or no need for speed limit signs either.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce and simplify speed limits for all vehicles on all roads (possible exception of motorways). For example, all roads within a town area to have a speed limit of 20mph and all roads outside of town area to be 40mph. There would be little or no need for speed limit signs either.

reducing traffic congestion in towns at schools’ peak times

My idea is that the cycling on the pavement laws should be amended to permit cycling on the pavement before 9am and after 3pm to allow children safe, non-motorised, travel to and from school.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that the cycling on the pavement laws should be amended to permit cycling on the pavement before 9am and after 3pm to allow children safe, non-motorised, travel to and from school.

Cycling on the footpath

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Legalise walking and cycling through (some) red lights

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Cyclists

Repeal whatever daft law permits cycists on the road with having taken no driving test and not having paid for a licence and who do not display a registration number.

 

No-one should be permitted on the road unless they have been properly trained.  This is in the interests of cyclists most of all.

 

Then start to enforce against cyclists and motorcyclists whose dangerous driving is a menace to everyone.  (Not all I hasten to add.  A small minority are capable and safe).

Why is this idea important?

Repeal whatever daft law permits cycists on the road with having taken no driving test and not having paid for a licence and who do not display a registration number.

 

No-one should be permitted on the road unless they have been properly trained.  This is in the interests of cyclists most of all.

 

Then start to enforce against cyclists and motorcyclists whose dangerous driving is a menace to everyone.  (Not all I hasten to add.  A small minority are capable and safe).

Cyclists and Road Traffic Acts

Safety of cyclists

I would welcome the following changes

1) That cyclists be entitled to cross road junctions and pedestrian crossings on green whilst retaining priority for pedestrians

2) That cyclists be permitted to turn left on red lights when no other vehicles approach and it is safe to do so – this is the practise for all vehicles in Canada

Why is this idea important?

Safety of cyclists

I would welcome the following changes

1) That cyclists be entitled to cross road junctions and pedestrian crossings on green whilst retaining priority for pedestrians

2) That cyclists be permitted to turn left on red lights when no other vehicles approach and it is safe to do so – this is the practise for all vehicles in Canada

Ban horses from public roads.

I think horses should be banned from public roads. Horses and their riders pay no road tax, they cause certain motorists to behave in an irresponsible way by refusing to pass these animals until they can pass with an absurdly wide berth. At the very least, people riding horses on the public road should pass a test and understand the highway code.

Why is this idea important?

I think horses should be banned from public roads. Horses and their riders pay no road tax, they cause certain motorists to behave in an irresponsible way by refusing to pass these animals until they can pass with an absurdly wide berth. At the very least, people riding horses on the public road should pass a test and understand the highway code.

Cyclists and one way streets

Cyclists should be able to cylce the wrong way down one way streets.  Many one way streets have low volumes of traffic and would not be dangerous to cycle along.  We could go one step further like the Germans and add "except cyclists" to no entry road signs on one-way streets.

Why is this idea important?

Cyclists should be able to cylce the wrong way down one way streets.  Many one way streets have low volumes of traffic and would not be dangerous to cycle along.  We could go one step further like the Germans and add "except cyclists" to no entry road signs on one-way streets.

Cycling on Pavements

The rules that stop people cycling on pavements should go.  On some roads the pavement is the safest place to cycle.  For children or people with disabilities the pavement is the safest place to cycle. 

Having seen police enforcing this ridiculous law/rule with youngsters, when the pavement has always been used for cycling and then having to complete paperwork afterwards was idiotic.

A waste of police time and energy and bureaucracy gone totally insane.

(It seems OK for pwered mobility vehicles to go on pavements though – no logic from last government).

Good luck

Why is this idea important?

The rules that stop people cycling on pavements should go.  On some roads the pavement is the safest place to cycle.  For children or people with disabilities the pavement is the safest place to cycle. 

Having seen police enforcing this ridiculous law/rule with youngsters, when the pavement has always been used for cycling and then having to complete paperwork afterwards was idiotic.

A waste of police time and energy and bureaucracy gone totally insane.

(It seems OK for pwered mobility vehicles to go on pavements though – no logic from last government).

Good luck

Cycling

Revoke or change whatever law says that prohibits cycling on the pavement. It puts parents off taking their children cycling and most of the time pavements are empty.

Why is this idea important?

Revoke or change whatever law says that prohibits cycling on the pavement. It puts parents off taking their children cycling and most of the time pavements are empty.

Allow alternatives to pedal reflectors on bikes

Amend the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations so that pedal cycles are allowed some alternatives to pedal reflectors. Either ankle bands made of reflective material. Or an extra rear reflector or light.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations so that pedal cycles are allowed some alternatives to pedal reflectors. Either ankle bands made of reflective material. Or an extra rear reflector or light.

Cycling and Pavements

For safety reasons cycling should generally be permitted on pavements unless designated otherwise  in high density pedestrian areas. It is irrational that invalid carriages/scooters should alone have this dispensation since cyclists are equally vulnerable road users.This would encourage parents to allow their children to cycle more readily and might encourage cycling more generally.

In many out of town centre areas where pavements are often infrequently  used by pedestrians I would suggest that the general rule should be  dual use but that cyclists 'Give way to pedestrians'. 

Why is this idea important?

For safety reasons cycling should generally be permitted on pavements unless designated otherwise  in high density pedestrian areas. It is irrational that invalid carriages/scooters should alone have this dispensation since cyclists are equally vulnerable road users.This would encourage parents to allow their children to cycle more readily and might encourage cycling more generally.

In many out of town centre areas where pavements are often infrequently  used by pedestrians I would suggest that the general rule should be  dual use but that cyclists 'Give way to pedestrians'. 

Walkers rights of way on tracks used by vehicles should be bridleways and hence usable by cyclists.

If a carriageway is habitually used by vehicles and is currently a right of way  for walkers, it should, BY DEFAULT, be considered to be a bridleway and therefore available to cyclists as well. It is my understanding, although I have not yet been able to track down the reference, that it was agreed after the war, that a great many bridleways should be downgraded to footpaths. This change should be reversed.

If vehicle use is disputed, a width of 3M could be substituted.

Why is this idea important?

If a carriageway is habitually used by vehicles and is currently a right of way  for walkers, it should, BY DEFAULT, be considered to be a bridleway and therefore available to cyclists as well. It is my understanding, although I have not yet been able to track down the reference, that it was agreed after the war, that a great many bridleways should be downgraded to footpaths. This change should be reversed.

If vehicle use is disputed, a width of 3M could be substituted.