Scrap the Drivers CPC for HGV Drivers

This is unnecessary legislation. The need for continual training for professional drivers should be, and is, determined by the employer according to the specifics of the job. Most of the training on offer is of no benefit or fills no apparent need. This will add to the cost of employing a driver and add to bureaucracy.  Any additional training needed at the point of the driver obtaining their licence should be a mandatory part on the training needed to pass the driving test.

Why is this idea important?

This is unnecessary legislation. The need for continual training for professional drivers should be, and is, determined by the employer according to the specifics of the job. Most of the training on offer is of no benefit or fills no apparent need. This will add to the cost of employing a driver and add to bureaucracy.  Any additional training needed at the point of the driver obtaining their licence should be a mandatory part on the training needed to pass the driving test.

Simplification of minibus driving regulations

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

Why is this idea important?

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

car insurance No Claims Bonus

Lets say I have proof of full no claims bonus, built up over many years at a huge cost.

If for financial or green reasons our family are reduced to one car, if I am named as a second driver I can lose my no claims bonus.

I should be able to keep  NCB, as some insurers/many would not recognize my time driving as a 2nd driver.

 

The motor car insurance business needs a sort out, they can not self regulate, so legislate.

Why is this idea important?

Lets say I have proof of full no claims bonus, built up over many years at a huge cost.

If for financial or green reasons our family are reduced to one car, if I am named as a second driver I can lose my no claims bonus.

I should be able to keep  NCB, as some insurers/many would not recognize my time driving as a 2nd driver.

 

The motor car insurance business needs a sort out, they can not self regulate, so legislate.

Modify Road Tax and Motor Insurance

Road Tax

  • Replace the Road Tax and minimum requirement for Third Party car insurance with a levy included in fuel charges – so any user has already paid road tax.  No need for a tax disc – all cars pay as they go in fuel costs. 
  • Charge and provide visitor tax disc to non-uk cars at point of entry – time based or mileage based charge.
  • Hypothecate at least as proportion of revenues to better road maintenance and more  efficient + cleaner engines.

Car Insurance

  • Set up an insurance policy administered by co-owned speciailst insurance business public /private (ie. existing insureunderwriters) for Third Party liabilities.
  • Private sector element tenders regularly for contract on fixed term to provide at optimal cost and administer for us.
  • Payout of 'medical' costs that NHS has to fix swift and directed to it by the Insurer.
  • Other third party costs dealt with fairly and within insurance contract laws.
  • Profits – shared by private sector firms in conglomerate and public purse.

Why is this idea important?

Road Tax

  • Replace the Road Tax and minimum requirement for Third Party car insurance with a levy included in fuel charges – so any user has already paid road tax.  No need for a tax disc – all cars pay as they go in fuel costs. 
  • Charge and provide visitor tax disc to non-uk cars at point of entry – time based or mileage based charge.
  • Hypothecate at least as proportion of revenues to better road maintenance and more  efficient + cleaner engines.

Car Insurance

  • Set up an insurance policy administered by co-owned speciailst insurance business public /private (ie. existing insureunderwriters) for Third Party liabilities.
  • Private sector element tenders regularly for contract on fixed term to provide at optimal cost and administer for us.
  • Payout of 'medical' costs that NHS has to fix swift and directed to it by the Insurer.
  • Other third party costs dealt with fairly and within insurance contract laws.
  • Profits – shared by private sector firms in conglomerate and public purse.

Reduce the requirements for micro-vehicles

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

Why is this idea important?

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

Simplify parking restrictions in residential streets

We have just had the ridiculous situation of our local council of Hammersmith & Fulham putting in new metal posts with parking restriction signs placed at every parking bay painted in our street where previously we only had signs at sensible intervals placed on lamp posts. This means we now have had to endure yet more ugly street furniture when there is already far too much anyway.  it also makes parking much more restrictive because you cannot park beside one of these new parking posts and open your car door. It is also a huge waste of local tax payers money! We are told it has been done because the law requires it – what bureaucratic nonsense!

Why can't the laws regarding parking be simplified and standardised so that parking restriction signs need only be placed at the end of each street and on the parking meter itself . These simple rules and signs could  possibly incorporated in the Highway Code too so that every driver would then be required to know what the very simple rules governing parking restrictions in residential city streets are. This would save time and money in the Courts as everyone would be expected to know the rules. It would remove the need for ugly unnecessary street furniture which would save local taxpayers yet further expenditure.  

Why is this idea important?

We have just had the ridiculous situation of our local council of Hammersmith & Fulham putting in new metal posts with parking restriction signs placed at every parking bay painted in our street where previously we only had signs at sensible intervals placed on lamp posts. This means we now have had to endure yet more ugly street furniture when there is already far too much anyway.  it also makes parking much more restrictive because you cannot park beside one of these new parking posts and open your car door. It is also a huge waste of local tax payers money! We are told it has been done because the law requires it – what bureaucratic nonsense!

Why can't the laws regarding parking be simplified and standardised so that parking restriction signs need only be placed at the end of each street and on the parking meter itself . These simple rules and signs could  possibly incorporated in the Highway Code too so that every driver would then be required to know what the very simple rules governing parking restrictions in residential city streets are. This would save time and money in the Courts as everyone would be expected to know the rules. It would remove the need for ugly unnecessary street furniture which would save local taxpayers yet further expenditure.  

Remove councils’ right to tax roadside parking

This is another stealth tax.  Parking should not be allowed where it is dangerous or obstructs the flow of traffic.  Other than that it should be freely available.  There is no reason why greedy councils should be entitled to charge for parking in an ever-increasing number of roads throughout the UK.

Why is this idea important?

This is another stealth tax.  Parking should not be allowed where it is dangerous or obstructs the flow of traffic.  Other than that it should be freely available.  There is no reason why greedy councils should be entitled to charge for parking in an ever-increasing number of roads throughout the UK.

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?

DVLA and Data Protection

Currently DVLA sell full names and addresses of vehicle holders to anyone who pays a paltry sum. Data required to be submitted by private individuals to a government body should have protection under the Data Protection Act. If the information is held on an electronic database and given for a specific purpose there can be no justification for the government selling it on to anyone other than the police.  Is it done to raise funds?

Why is this idea important?

Currently DVLA sell full names and addresses of vehicle holders to anyone who pays a paltry sum. Data required to be submitted by private individuals to a government body should have protection under the Data Protection Act. If the information is held on an electronic database and given for a specific purpose there can be no justification for the government selling it on to anyone other than the police.  Is it done to raise funds?

REMOVAL OF B + E TRAILER AND LGV ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TESTS

I believe that vehicles which are substantially different to cars should require extra training but the cost to do this should be capped and the test prices should be considerably lower. However, vehicles which are more similar should not. Its common sense and we need to get of this crazy nanny state we ahve become and allow people to think for themselves.

By having so many diffierent vehcile tests and making costs of them so high it encourages people to drive illegally because they cannot afford to do it.

I have a full driving license and have recently had to pay £700 in order to take my trailer B + E class driving test to enable me to tow a horse trailer. I am horrified and disgusted about having to pay so much money to do this especially when I am covered under my current license to tow a trailer under 750kgs. The technique is exactly the same and quite honestly I have been driving a trailer with a horse in illegally because I was non the wiser.. the DVLA website is awful.

If you have passed you test prior to 1997 then you are automatically able to drive a trailer with a horse in or something of similar weight. If driving tests are supposed to be getting harder then surely it should be those who pass prior to 1997 who should take the test. What was in the water prior to 1997 that gave those taking their tests the gift of a better driving technique??

 

The entire system contradicts itself and is totally inconsistent. Its poor level of thought behind it just further causes people anger and highlights the fact this is another money taking scheme that quite simply is not fair on those trying to behave responsibly. I should have been able to spend the £700 on a better, safer horse trailer instead of having to really save to do an unnessesary test.

It’s infuriating and another old labour policy penalising people trying to behave appropriately and taking more of their hard earned money!!!!!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

I believe that vehicles which are substantially different to cars should require extra training but the cost to do this should be capped and the test prices should be considerably lower. However, vehicles which are more similar should not. Its common sense and we need to get of this crazy nanny state we ahve become and allow people to think for themselves.

By having so many diffierent vehcile tests and making costs of them so high it encourages people to drive illegally because they cannot afford to do it.

I have a full driving license and have recently had to pay £700 in order to take my trailer B + E class driving test to enable me to tow a horse trailer. I am horrified and disgusted about having to pay so much money to do this especially when I am covered under my current license to tow a trailer under 750kgs. The technique is exactly the same and quite honestly I have been driving a trailer with a horse in illegally because I was non the wiser.. the DVLA website is awful.

If you have passed you test prior to 1997 then you are automatically able to drive a trailer with a horse in or something of similar weight. If driving tests are supposed to be getting harder then surely it should be those who pass prior to 1997 who should take the test. What was in the water prior to 1997 that gave those taking their tests the gift of a better driving technique??

 

The entire system contradicts itself and is totally inconsistent. Its poor level of thought behind it just further causes people anger and highlights the fact this is another money taking scheme that quite simply is not fair on those trying to behave responsibly. I should have been able to spend the £700 on a better, safer horse trailer instead of having to really save to do an unnessesary test.

It’s infuriating and another old labour policy penalising people trying to behave appropriately and taking more of their hard earned money!!!!!!!!!

Make speed camera photo’s available

Currently if you receive a speeding fine resulting from a speed camera you are not allowed to see the evidence unless and until you go to court. You have the choice to accept a fixed penalty notice or dispute it without the normal 'habeous corpus', you are asked to take on faith that there is evidence to support the allegation of an offence.

Supporting evidence i.e, the photographic evidence from the speed camera and the speed calculations should be sent out with the penalty notice. You could then be sure that you had committed an offence, currently there is no way that you can be certain that it was your vehicle which tripped the camera so you might be forced into paying a fine for an offence you have not committed.

Why is this idea important?

Currently if you receive a speeding fine resulting from a speed camera you are not allowed to see the evidence unless and until you go to court. You have the choice to accept a fixed penalty notice or dispute it without the normal 'habeous corpus', you are asked to take on faith that there is evidence to support the allegation of an offence.

Supporting evidence i.e, the photographic evidence from the speed camera and the speed calculations should be sent out with the penalty notice. You could then be sure that you had committed an offence, currently there is no way that you can be certain that it was your vehicle which tripped the camera so you might be forced into paying a fine for an offence you have not committed.

Increase National Speed Limit To 80MPH!

The government should increase the national speed limit on all motorways to 80 MPH to tie in with most other countries and take full advantage of the technologically advanced cars of the 21st century which are designed to handle faster speeds and be much safer!

– Failing that, upgrade a main motorway from London to Scotland into a 'Freeway' – where the national speed limit is scrapped and it works in the same way as the Autobahn in Germany!

Why is this idea important?

The government should increase the national speed limit on all motorways to 80 MPH to tie in with most other countries and take full advantage of the technologically advanced cars of the 21st century which are designed to handle faster speeds and be much safer!

– Failing that, upgrade a main motorway from London to Scotland into a 'Freeway' – where the national speed limit is scrapped and it works in the same way as the Autobahn in Germany!

Traffic Management and Streetworks Act

This act should be repealed as it costs utility companies and their contractors a huge amount of money and resource and delivers nothing to the public in terms of traffic and congestion control. Local Authorities are poor at providing this information to the public and fines to contractors and statutory undertakers are too high and authorities abuse their powers.

Why is this idea important?

This act should be repealed as it costs utility companies and their contractors a huge amount of money and resource and delivers nothing to the public in terms of traffic and congestion control. Local Authorities are poor at providing this information to the public and fines to contractors and statutory undertakers are too high and authorities abuse their powers.

Ban smoking in vehicles that carry children

I am a smoker myself and i just cannot understand when the smoking ban came in why it did not include smoking with children in a vehicle yet it did about adults who have the choice to get out if they dont want to breath in smoke unlike the children. Everyday i drive pass cars with children in the back and the driver is puffing away on a ciggarette with the widows shut .

Why is this idea important?

I am a smoker myself and i just cannot understand when the smoking ban came in why it did not include smoking with children in a vehicle yet it did about adults who have the choice to get out if they dont want to breath in smoke unlike the children. Everyday i drive pass cars with children in the back and the driver is puffing away on a ciggarette with the widows shut .

Traffic Lights regulations (turn left on red / onpeak only)

I don't know which law is involved / needs amending or repealing, but I would like traffic lights to become advisory between 9pm and 5am (flashing amber would indicate this) and for drivers to be permitted to left turn at red lights (subject to gving way to the prevailing traffic)

Why is this idea important?

I don't know which law is involved / needs amending or repealing, but I would like traffic lights to become advisory between 9pm and 5am (flashing amber would indicate this) and for drivers to be permitted to left turn at red lights (subject to gving way to the prevailing traffic)

Public Transport and Hot Drinks/Bevereges

On trains you are not allowed, ostensibly, to be served with any hot water without a  top on the cup or in your own flask ..encountered this for some yrs on East Coast mainline0 but always seemed to depend who you got!!??

Bought tickets for bus shuttle from Edinburgh Airport into town,  rtning just days after the "breath of fresh air" election and was hoping "freedoms " might have rtned a little. The officious staff then advised us we could not board with our hot costa coffee, ostensibly becoz it was hot and posed a dangerous risk to us and others??!! even tho' it did have a lid on it!! In the end we hid it , half drunk , in our haversack , when there was a change of staff and it spilled eveywhere!!

* We just wanted to get home , coz we took 4 days to get on hols with volcash at the start of our pre-booked hols (all public T known to humankind, self-organise and not re-imbursed) and had also been stranded in Agadir for 2 days with volcash round 2!!! at the end of hols…We are still tryin to get a few 100 gainst extra 2K we spent to get on hols and back 

Why is this idea important?

On trains you are not allowed, ostensibly, to be served with any hot water without a  top on the cup or in your own flask ..encountered this for some yrs on East Coast mainline0 but always seemed to depend who you got!!??

Bought tickets for bus shuttle from Edinburgh Airport into town,  rtning just days after the "breath of fresh air" election and was hoping "freedoms " might have rtned a little. The officious staff then advised us we could not board with our hot costa coffee, ostensibly becoz it was hot and posed a dangerous risk to us and others??!! even tho' it did have a lid on it!! In the end we hid it , half drunk , in our haversack , when there was a change of staff and it spilled eveywhere!!

* We just wanted to get home , coz we took 4 days to get on hols with volcash at the start of our pre-booked hols (all public T known to humankind, self-organise and not re-imbursed) and had also been stranded in Agadir for 2 days with volcash round 2!!! at the end of hols…We are still tryin to get a few 100 gainst extra 2K we spent to get on hols and back 

Repeal the criminal offense of touching a mobile phone in a car

It should be an offence to make a mobile call while pressing a phone to your ear with one hand. 

It should not be an offence to touch a phone once (as I have to) to make or receive a hands free call. 

Then, actually enforce the law.  I have been overtaken by more white van drivers and school run mums who are chatting on their mobiles with their hands to their ears, than I have had hot dinners!

Why is this idea important?

It should be an offence to make a mobile call while pressing a phone to your ear with one hand. 

It should not be an offence to touch a phone once (as I have to) to make or receive a hands free call. 

Then, actually enforce the law.  I have been overtaken by more white van drivers and school run mums who are chatting on their mobiles with their hands to their ears, than I have had hot dinners!

INIQUITOUS ‘SORN’ LAW MUST BE REPEALED

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

Why is this idea important?

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

National Highways Sector Schemes

Remove the masses of legislation required to work on roads controlled by the highways agency. There are over 17 sector schemes which require certification for companies carrying out work on roads.  Each certification costs the operator over £500 to be certified by an accredited certification body and each scheme costs the certification body approx £3,000 to be accredited by UKAS.  It is absolute madness.

 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the masses of legislation required to work on roads controlled by the highways agency. There are over 17 sector schemes which require certification for companies carrying out work on roads.  Each certification costs the operator over £500 to be certified by an accredited certification body and each scheme costs the certification body approx £3,000 to be accredited by UKAS.  It is absolute madness.

 

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