de-limit taxi licences

My idea is de-limit the taxi licences in the UK, because limitation policy is unfair and descriminatry. To keep limit on the number of taxes local council spend  thousand of pounds from public money to find out an un- met demand survey. Limitation creates a black market were plates are changing hends for huge amounts of cash, and people who dont do taxi and do not hold taxi driver licences are buying the plates for cash and renting them out and charging unfairly high rents.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is de-limit the taxi licences in the UK, because limitation policy is unfair and descriminatry. To keep limit on the number of taxes local council spend  thousand of pounds from public money to find out an un- met demand survey. Limitation creates a black market were plates are changing hends for huge amounts of cash, and people who dont do taxi and do not hold taxi driver licences are buying the plates for cash and renting them out and charging unfairly high rents.

Tax on red diesel.

The scheme for sales on red diesel on our boat marina is complicated to say the least. We have to keep records of who buys what then the customer has to sign the document stating what proportion is for heating and what is for cruising. As most of our customers are live aboards it is mainly charged at the rate for heating.  We then have to file a document stating what has been sold and the tax bracket of same.  To make it worse they will not allow this document to be sent by fax and as we have previously sent a return on time but they did not receive same, we now have to go to the Post Office to get a proof of posting.  I know it can be done on line but this has proved to somewhat difficult.

Why is this idea important?

The scheme for sales on red diesel on our boat marina is complicated to say the least. We have to keep records of who buys what then the customer has to sign the document stating what proportion is for heating and what is for cruising. As most of our customers are live aboards it is mainly charged at the rate for heating.  We then have to file a document stating what has been sold and the tax bracket of same.  To make it worse they will not allow this document to be sent by fax and as we have previously sent a return on time but they did not receive same, we now have to go to the Post Office to get a proof of posting.  I know it can be done on line but this has proved to somewhat difficult.

abandon distinction between hackney cabs and private hire

The law distinguishes between Hackney Cabs and Private hire taxi vehicles due to a long history.

Now that rates of carriage are the same, and Sat Nav and mobile phones are universally used by both types of vehicle there is no need for any licencing distinction.

Solution

Notice should be given that in 7 years time that Hackney Carriage  licences will be abandoned and all taxis will trade equally.

this will allow there to be a steady run down of the value placed on Hackney licences .

Why is this idea important?

The law distinguishes between Hackney Cabs and Private hire taxi vehicles due to a long history.

Now that rates of carriage are the same, and Sat Nav and mobile phones are universally used by both types of vehicle there is no need for any licencing distinction.

Solution

Notice should be given that in 7 years time that Hackney Carriage  licences will be abandoned and all taxis will trade equally.

this will allow there to be a steady run down of the value placed on Hackney licences .

Replace default 60mph limit by 50mph

In Derbyshire almost all major roads now have 50mph limits. So each road has 50mph repeater signs along its length. Why not make the default speed limit 50mph (currently 60mph) but allow and sign 60 or even 70mph on suiatble roads.

Why is this idea important?

In Derbyshire almost all major roads now have 50mph limits. So each road has 50mph repeater signs along its length. Why not make the default speed limit 50mph (currently 60mph) but allow and sign 60 or even 70mph on suiatble roads.

Shared taxis are green & complement public transport

I advocate scrapping all laws and regulations that prevent a shared-taxi service being operated in the UK.

Shared taxis services operate successfully in many other countries, including mainland Europe.

Why is this idea important?

I advocate scrapping all laws and regulations that prevent a shared-taxi service being operated in the UK.

Shared taxis services operate successfully in many other countries, including mainland Europe.

Repeal the 1993 Railways Act

The manner in which the railways were privatised under the 1993 Railways Act led to an organisational nightmare.  On 5 November 2006 the Transport Select Committee report, Passenger Rail Franchising, described the current franchising regime as “a complex, fragmented and costly muddle which is unlikely to provide the innovation and investment needed for the passenger railways of the future. The system has had a decade to prove itself, but it has failed to achieve its core objectives.”  

When John Major’s government privatised the railways, we were told that it was in order to comply with EU Directive 91/440, which sought to liberalise railway systems.  Even today, approaching two decades since the Directive, some people opposed to the European Union still argue that we had to split the infrastructure from operation in order to comply with the Directive when all that was required was a minor adjustment in accounting.  British Rail already had a distinct organisational system between traffic (operation) and permanent way (infrastructure).   If it were true that we had to split infrastructure from operation (an privatise) Duetsche Bahn in Germany and the SNCF in France would have failed to comply.   

Why is this idea important?

The manner in which the railways were privatised under the 1993 Railways Act led to an organisational nightmare.  On 5 November 2006 the Transport Select Committee report, Passenger Rail Franchising, described the current franchising regime as “a complex, fragmented and costly muddle which is unlikely to provide the innovation and investment needed for the passenger railways of the future. The system has had a decade to prove itself, but it has failed to achieve its core objectives.”  

When John Major’s government privatised the railways, we were told that it was in order to comply with EU Directive 91/440, which sought to liberalise railway systems.  Even today, approaching two decades since the Directive, some people opposed to the European Union still argue that we had to split the infrastructure from operation in order to comply with the Directive when all that was required was a minor adjustment in accounting.  British Rail already had a distinct organisational system between traffic (operation) and permanent way (infrastructure).   If it were true that we had to split infrastructure from operation (an privatise) Duetsche Bahn in Germany and the SNCF in France would have failed to comply.   

Reduce business rates in town centres and increase them in out of town parks

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

Why is this idea important?

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

Reduce motorway congestion by allowing overtaking on the inside

Remove the law stopping overtaking on the inside on motorways and make all lanes on a motorway equal as is currently done in the USA and other countries.  This will remove the need of many people to constantly hog the "fast lane".  Any argument against this on the grounds of safety is now defunct as so many people flout the rules and overtake on the inside anyway that it is impossible to move lanes in either direction without a thorough check that the lane is clear.  With no one lane being thought of as the "fast lane" then all traffic will spread out evenly and traffic will flow much more freely. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the law stopping overtaking on the inside on motorways and make all lanes on a motorway equal as is currently done in the USA and other countries.  This will remove the need of many people to constantly hog the "fast lane".  Any argument against this on the grounds of safety is now defunct as so many people flout the rules and overtake on the inside anyway that it is impossible to move lanes in either direction without a thorough check that the lane is clear.  With no one lane being thought of as the "fast lane" then all traffic will spread out evenly and traffic will flow much more freely. 

Allow nurseries and after schools in private sector to use16 seat mini buses

Private sector nurseries and afterschool/holiday clubs have been forced by DVLA to remove 8 seats from their 16 seat minibuses due to complaints from bus companies who want the trade.

DVLA claim that nurseries and afterschools use the buses for'hire and reward' and so need to change their licences to drive the bus. In most cases these are used as part of the service to the children and are not charged. The outcome is that children in our rural areas are unable to go out of the limited environment surrounding them.

The afterschool children who are picked up from school are not charged any more for this service than those who come without being picked up by the bus.

The only people to suffer in this are the children.

If we made ourselves a 'charitable' organisation or 'voluntary ' organisation we would be able to use our buses with the 16 seats in it and with the same drivers driving with their current licence!! Insanity!

Local Authority nurseries can use the buses with 16 seats and no special licence or conditions.

Hopefully this government will stand for common sense and fairness. I am not hlding my breath but would be happy to be proved wrong!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Private sector nurseries and afterschool/holiday clubs have been forced by DVLA to remove 8 seats from their 16 seat minibuses due to complaints from bus companies who want the trade.

DVLA claim that nurseries and afterschools use the buses for'hire and reward' and so need to change their licences to drive the bus. In most cases these are used as part of the service to the children and are not charged. The outcome is that children in our rural areas are unable to go out of the limited environment surrounding them.

The afterschool children who are picked up from school are not charged any more for this service than those who come without being picked up by the bus.

The only people to suffer in this are the children.

If we made ourselves a 'charitable' organisation or 'voluntary ' organisation we would be able to use our buses with the 16 seats in it and with the same drivers driving with their current licence!! Insanity!

Local Authority nurseries can use the buses with 16 seats and no special licence or conditions.

Hopefully this government will stand for common sense and fairness. I am not hlding my breath but would be happy to be proved wrong!!!!

All Way Stop At Road Junctions

The average cost of installing traffic lights at a junction is over £100,000.  Why don’t we allow the installation of all way stops as they do in the USA.  A couple of pots of paint and a few signs and it works like a dream.

Why is this idea important?

The average cost of installing traffic lights at a junction is over £100,000.  Why don’t we allow the installation of all way stops as they do in the USA.  A couple of pots of paint and a few signs and it works like a dream.

Stop Painting Roads

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Why is this idea important?

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Repeal the TMA 2004

The traffic Management Act 2004 should be repealed, specifically with regards to the requirements for streetworks undertakers to provide specific notice types to local Authorities in order to commence works in the highway.

Why is this idea important?

The traffic Management Act 2004 should be repealed, specifically with regards to the requirements for streetworks undertakers to provide specific notice types to local Authorities in order to commence works in the highway.

Scrap VED and introduce a dual MOT & insurance disc

Vehicle Excise Duty, like many taxes, is disproportionately costly to administer and collect.

Many have already said as much on this site. I wish to tie three popular threads together here.

VED should be scrapped and (if necessary) the lost revenue compensated by additional fuel duty.

The disc in our car windscreen should remain, and should only be issued by an insurance company on an annual basis, once they receive an MOT receipt and are satisfied themselves that it is from a genuine company.

This could additionally have a barcode on the disc that any parking enforcement officer can scan with their handheld device to ascertain whether the disc and the car are married on the DVLA data base. This would also give them an audit trail when issuing tickets.

Why is this idea important?

Vehicle Excise Duty, like many taxes, is disproportionately costly to administer and collect.

Many have already said as much on this site. I wish to tie three popular threads together here.

VED should be scrapped and (if necessary) the lost revenue compensated by additional fuel duty.

The disc in our car windscreen should remain, and should only be issued by an insurance company on an annual basis, once they receive an MOT receipt and are satisfied themselves that it is from a genuine company.

This could additionally have a barcode on the disc that any parking enforcement officer can scan with their handheld device to ascertain whether the disc and the car are married on the DVLA data base. This would also give them an audit trail when issuing tickets.

Unfair Local Council rules for Taxi/Private Hire vehicle licencing

The taxi / private hire licencing laws need rapid overhaul. The recently introduced vehicle licencing rules in each local council are all very different, you are penalised heavily for running a business in Suffolk Coastal with a 91 page document to adhere to every 6 months for a vehicle check, and you have a very limited choice of places for those vehicle checks with high set fees (which could be against Competition Law).

I would recommend a single national simplified vehicle licence process for taxis/private hire, aligned with annual MOT tests based around car and passenger safety, and you can source those licence tests anywhere in the UK as you can do for MOTs.

There are also issues with disproportionate increases in fees for operators of 5+ vehicles. There should be a simple fee structure that is charged on a vehicle basis (e.g. if you have 6 cars you have 6 x the vehicle fee only).

I believe this would create a fairer process for everyone in the trade.

Why is this idea important?

The taxi / private hire licencing laws need rapid overhaul. The recently introduced vehicle licencing rules in each local council are all very different, you are penalised heavily for running a business in Suffolk Coastal with a 91 page document to adhere to every 6 months for a vehicle check, and you have a very limited choice of places for those vehicle checks with high set fees (which could be against Competition Law).

I would recommend a single national simplified vehicle licence process for taxis/private hire, aligned with annual MOT tests based around car and passenger safety, and you can source those licence tests anywhere in the UK as you can do for MOTs.

There are also issues with disproportionate increases in fees for operators of 5+ vehicles. There should be a simple fee structure that is charged on a vehicle basis (e.g. if you have 6 cars you have 6 x the vehicle fee only).

I believe this would create a fairer process for everyone in the trade.

towing allowances on post 1997 driving licences

remove the 750kg maximum towing allowance on post 1997 licences, this seems to be a pointless restriction as pre 1997 licences don't have this restriction,

Why is this idea important?

remove the 750kg maximum towing allowance on post 1997 licences, this seems to be a pointless restriction as pre 1997 licences don't have this restriction,

Replace road tax with a FAIR increase in fuel duty.

Many peple have already suggested this but wanted to add my voice. Advantages are so obvious so no need to repeat but it MUST be done FAIRLY. This is not a mechanism just to increase revenue. Average miles are regarded as 12,000 miles a year so the fuel duty must  be set so an average person in an average 1.3 car doing 12,000 miles a year pays the same as now. You do more miles in a big car you pay more, less miles in a smaller car you pay less. No tax avoidance and get rid of a whole dept of SORN with their absurd paperwork and enforcement and encourage people to do less miles, car share and so on. Win win win win.

Why is this idea important?

Many peple have already suggested this but wanted to add my voice. Advantages are so obvious so no need to repeat but it MUST be done FAIRLY. This is not a mechanism just to increase revenue. Average miles are regarded as 12,000 miles a year so the fuel duty must  be set so an average person in an average 1.3 car doing 12,000 miles a year pays the same as now. You do more miles in a big car you pay more, less miles in a smaller car you pay less. No tax avoidance and get rid of a whole dept of SORN with their absurd paperwork and enforcement and encourage people to do less miles, car share and so on. Win win win win.

Reduce road tax for historic cars to 25 years

Currently you dont have to pay road tax on any car if it was built before 1st Jan 1973 !! I own a 1979 MGB roadster and probably do around 500-1000 miles a year in as its old and needs a lot more attension but because it was built in 1979 i have to pay £180 every year to allow me to drive it on the road.

I have another car to get to work and that to costs me another £180 a year, I can't drive both at the same time, and due to the increasing costs of life my pride in joy may have to be sold as I can't afford to keep it.

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently you dont have to pay road tax on any car if it was built before 1st Jan 1973 !! I own a 1979 MGB roadster and probably do around 500-1000 miles a year in as its old and needs a lot more attension but because it was built in 1979 i have to pay £180 every year to allow me to drive it on the road.

I have another car to get to work and that to costs me another £180 a year, I can't drive both at the same time, and due to the increasing costs of life my pride in joy may have to be sold as I can't afford to keep it.

 

Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928

The UK Dept of Transport Regulations state:
Diesel: Diesel carried by private individuals is not regulated as regards how
much may be carried and how. Anyone contemplating carrying diesel in a
vehicle should bear in mind the potential for fire and the likelihood of spillage
from inadequate containment.
Petrol: Regulations made under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 control
the quantities of petrol permitted to be kept in containers for private use. This
limit also applies to carriage. A maximum of two metal containers each up to 10
litres capacity, plus a maximum of two suitable and appropriately-marked plastic
containers each up to five litres capacity, can be kept in a motor vehicle.

This Act was brought in, in 1928 and I would like to see it amended. Engines today are much larger than in1928 and this law makes several trips to the filling station necessary in order to fill up my boat's tank. I would like to see the limit raised by at least double.

T

Why is this idea important?

The UK Dept of Transport Regulations state:
Diesel: Diesel carried by private individuals is not regulated as regards how
much may be carried and how. Anyone contemplating carrying diesel in a
vehicle should bear in mind the potential for fire and the likelihood of spillage
from inadequate containment.
Petrol: Regulations made under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 control
the quantities of petrol permitted to be kept in containers for private use. This
limit also applies to carriage. A maximum of two metal containers each up to 10
litres capacity, plus a maximum of two suitable and appropriately-marked plastic
containers each up to five litres capacity, can be kept in a motor vehicle.

This Act was brought in, in 1928 and I would like to see it amended. Engines today are much larger than in1928 and this law makes several trips to the filling station necessary in order to fill up my boat's tank. I would like to see the limit raised by at least double.

T

Out of date paper tax disc on a taxed vehicle

Currently you can renew your tax disc on line. If it fails to arrive on time or gets stolen or lost in the post you can get a replacement. However if the current disc has expired you cannot use the vehicle on the road, not because its not taxed, but because you are not displaying a current disc , until the new disc arrives.

It should be an offence to have a vehicle on the road if its not taxed not if the tax disc displayed is out of date.

The tax status can be checked by the authorities, on line, in seconds using the registarion number rather than relying on a bit of paper in the windscreen.

The current law means if your disc is stolen you can be fined but the person who has stolen it and is using it on an untaxed  vehicle isn't.

Why is this idea important?

Currently you can renew your tax disc on line. If it fails to arrive on time or gets stolen or lost in the post you can get a replacement. However if the current disc has expired you cannot use the vehicle on the road, not because its not taxed, but because you are not displaying a current disc , until the new disc arrives.

It should be an offence to have a vehicle on the road if its not taxed not if the tax disc displayed is out of date.

The tax status can be checked by the authorities, on line, in seconds using the registarion number rather than relying on a bit of paper in the windscreen.

The current law means if your disc is stolen you can be fined but the person who has stolen it and is using it on an untaxed  vehicle isn't.

REmove useless paper work when buying a new numbr plate

As an ordinary member of the public if ou wish to buy a new car number plate you have to provide documentation as to the vechicle and your identity.    The motor trade can get them with no documentation and criminals can make their own.     So why bother the innocent person and add to the costs of small business.

Why is this idea important?

As an ordinary member of the public if ou wish to buy a new car number plate you have to provide documentation as to the vechicle and your identity.    The motor trade can get them with no documentation and criminals can make their own.     So why bother the innocent person and add to the costs of small business.

Make SORN a one-time action, i.e do not require renewal

It's not so long since a car was assumed to be off the road if the road tax was not renewed, & enforement against violators was based on police seeing cars with no road tax disc.Now you have to make a SORN declaration and renew it every year. This means you have to register a privately owned, unused vehicle every year, albeit free of charge. If you forget, you are classed alongside road tax evaders. Why not go back to assuming a car is off the road if road tax is not renewed, and only taking enforcement action if evidence is obtained that the car is used on public roads, OR, as a compromise, make the SORN permanent until the car is retaxed.

Why is this idea important?

It's not so long since a car was assumed to be off the road if the road tax was not renewed, & enforement against violators was based on police seeing cars with no road tax disc.Now you have to make a SORN declaration and renew it every year. This means you have to register a privately owned, unused vehicle every year, albeit free of charge. If you forget, you are classed alongside road tax evaders. Why not go back to assuming a car is off the road if road tax is not renewed, and only taking enforcement action if evidence is obtained that the car is used on public roads, OR, as a compromise, make the SORN permanent until the car is retaxed.

Abolish Speed cameras

Originally, speeding enforcement was a valuable service provided by trained Police officers, who usually tagetted stretches of road that were known to be dangerous, or residential roads where persistent anti-social driving was causing local residents distress.

With the advent of the speed camera and the subsequent "hypothecation" scheme brought in by the last Government (where local councils and Police were allowed to keep a portion of the money raised from speeding fines), speeding enforcement became a form of stealth taxation and was utterly abused.  The targets were no longer the most dangerous roads, where all but the reckless were cutting their speed anyway, but on the safest roads where the "Safety Camera Partnerships" could expect large numbers of people safely exceeding the posted speed limit by a small margin.

As peoples' driving habits adapted to the new hazard that the Government had introduced to our roads, an "Arms War" ensued, with the Partnerships using ever more surreptitious means, hiding cameras, installing deliberately confusing signage and even reducing the speed limits themselves to ridiculous levels, to maintain their income stream from otherwise perfectly law-abiding, safe drivers.

All of the evidence presented by the Partnerships for the safety benefit of wide-scale idiscriminate  Speed Camera use, with only a few exceptions, have turned out to be fraudulent; employing statistical "tricks" (such as the well known "Regression to the Mean" to overexaggerate the number of accidents supposedly prevented at Sped Camera sites.

As a result of all this flagrant abuse, speeding enforcement, particularly through the use of automated Cameras, has lost virtually all credibility with the population of the UK.

Ironically, speed cameras are now not even a profitable form of taxation, owing to the huge cost of purchasing, siting and maintaining the cameras, and collecting the fines, which, as with any unfair tax, have a huge nonpayment rate.

Speed cameras serve no useful purpose in this Country and must be abolished, except perhaps at specific sites where there is overwhelming Public demand, and even then only as a last resort after other safety measures have been considered.

Why is this idea important?

Originally, speeding enforcement was a valuable service provided by trained Police officers, who usually tagetted stretches of road that were known to be dangerous, or residential roads where persistent anti-social driving was causing local residents distress.

With the advent of the speed camera and the subsequent "hypothecation" scheme brought in by the last Government (where local councils and Police were allowed to keep a portion of the money raised from speeding fines), speeding enforcement became a form of stealth taxation and was utterly abused.  The targets were no longer the most dangerous roads, where all but the reckless were cutting their speed anyway, but on the safest roads where the "Safety Camera Partnerships" could expect large numbers of people safely exceeding the posted speed limit by a small margin.

As peoples' driving habits adapted to the new hazard that the Government had introduced to our roads, an "Arms War" ensued, with the Partnerships using ever more surreptitious means, hiding cameras, installing deliberately confusing signage and even reducing the speed limits themselves to ridiculous levels, to maintain their income stream from otherwise perfectly law-abiding, safe drivers.

All of the evidence presented by the Partnerships for the safety benefit of wide-scale idiscriminate  Speed Camera use, with only a few exceptions, have turned out to be fraudulent; employing statistical "tricks" (such as the well known "Regression to the Mean" to overexaggerate the number of accidents supposedly prevented at Sped Camera sites.

As a result of all this flagrant abuse, speeding enforcement, particularly through the use of automated Cameras, has lost virtually all credibility with the population of the UK.

Ironically, speed cameras are now not even a profitable form of taxation, owing to the huge cost of purchasing, siting and maintaining the cameras, and collecting the fines, which, as with any unfair tax, have a huge nonpayment rate.

Speed cameras serve no useful purpose in this Country and must be abolished, except perhaps at specific sites where there is overwhelming Public demand, and even then only as a last resort after other safety measures have been considered.

Don’t prosecute first-time transport fare evaders

Transport authorities such as Transport for London should not bring criminal prosecutions against someone for fare dodging on the first occasion on which they are caught. They should impose a fixed penalty fine instead.

Why is this idea important?

Transport authorities such as Transport for London should not bring criminal prosecutions against someone for fare dodging on the first occasion on which they are caught. They should impose a fixed penalty fine instead.