Increased granularity of driving offence points system

The current system of 12 points and 3 point offences is overly harsh, and therefore discourages minor driving infractions from being penalised.
Increasing the number of points a driver holds (e.g. to 100) would allow a much greater scaling of penal-points to be defined, e.g. 25 for speeding (as per current), 3 for ‘sitting in the middle lane’

This would allow the penalisation to fit the level of offence and therefore be more likely to be applied, resulting in a general improvement in driving standards.

Why is this idea important?

The current system of 12 points and 3 point offences is overly harsh, and therefore discourages minor driving infractions from being penalised.
Increasing the number of points a driver holds (e.g. to 100) would allow a much greater scaling of penal-points to be defined, e.g. 25 for speeding (as per current), 3 for ‘sitting in the middle lane’

This would allow the penalisation to fit the level of offence and therefore be more likely to be applied, resulting in a general improvement in driving standards.

Young drivers with modified cars driving dangerously

Like many people, i am tired of young drivers turning my local roads into a race track every night, taring around in their modified ford fiesta's, and driving behind me agreessively when i obey the speed limits. When i have reported individuals to the police no action has been taken.

 

Whilst i am doing my best to price these children off the roads entirely, as i work in the insurance industry, why can't these modifications be restricted to prevent cars being turned into status symbols, especially by the underclass from the local council estate.

 

How is it that these people can afford to buy and run a car, and make expensive modifications to it, whilst their only income is from state benefit?

Why is this idea important?

Like many people, i am tired of young drivers turning my local roads into a race track every night, taring around in their modified ford fiesta's, and driving behind me agreessively when i obey the speed limits. When i have reported individuals to the police no action has been taken.

 

Whilst i am doing my best to price these children off the roads entirely, as i work in the insurance industry, why can't these modifications be restricted to prevent cars being turned into status symbols, especially by the underclass from the local council estate.

 

How is it that these people can afford to buy and run a car, and make expensive modifications to it, whilst their only income is from state benefit?

Improving UK driving standards

I would like to see a longer, log book style route to becoming a qualified driver.  Our test at the moment, teaches new drivers to drive in town centres and nothing else.  I find it amazing that, in theory and often in practise, a new driver can hit the roads with no experience of dual carrigeway, motorway, nighttime, or adverse weather driving.

I would like to see a log book of competencies, ticked off by a qualified driving instructor, that demonstrates learner drivers have reached an acceptable standard in all aspects of driving.

I would also not rule out fully qualified drivers having to demonstrate that they are competent in all these areas of driving, I'm not just picking on new drivers

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see a longer, log book style route to becoming a qualified driver.  Our test at the moment, teaches new drivers to drive in town centres and nothing else.  I find it amazing that, in theory and often in practise, a new driver can hit the roads with no experience of dual carrigeway, motorway, nighttime, or adverse weather driving.

I would like to see a log book of competencies, ticked off by a qualified driving instructor, that demonstrates learner drivers have reached an acceptable standard in all aspects of driving.

I would also not rule out fully qualified drivers having to demonstrate that they are competent in all these areas of driving, I'm not just picking on new drivers

Restoration of sense to Highway Code

The Highway Code used to mostly say what was considered safe etc on a road and had very few 'MUST' or 'MUST NOT's in it.

 

This meant that drivers were not immediately breaking the law for doing something which, in their particular circumstances, was sensible even necessary but is illegal.

Why is this idea important?

The Highway Code used to mostly say what was considered safe etc on a road and had very few 'MUST' or 'MUST NOT's in it.

 

This meant that drivers were not immediately breaking the law for doing something which, in their particular circumstances, was sensible even necessary but is illegal.

New teenage drivers should have their driving freedom limited

Other countries of the world, including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Hong Kong, limit the driving freedom of new teenage drivers.  My favourites are:

  • For the first 12 / 18 months the only passengers that can be carried are parents or siblings
  • Driving is prohibited during certain night time hours
  • Speed restrictions apply
  • Size of engines are restricted

Research is best undertaken in the UK not only with insurance companies but also the drivers of breakdown lorries who pick up the mess off the roads.  They will tell you the incidence of young people in over-powerful cars, which I gather is anything over 1200cc.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries of the world, including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Hong Kong, limit the driving freedom of new teenage drivers.  My favourites are:

  • For the first 12 / 18 months the only passengers that can be carried are parents or siblings
  • Driving is prohibited during certain night time hours
  • Speed restrictions apply
  • Size of engines are restricted

Research is best undertaken in the UK not only with insurance companies but also the drivers of breakdown lorries who pick up the mess off the roads.  They will tell you the incidence of young people in over-powerful cars, which I gather is anything over 1200cc.

traffic officers should be paid on results

The recent introduction of traffic officers on our motorways has in my view led to more delays and has not led to any reduction in motorway traffic hold-ups

Their job should be to keep traffic moving at all costs,but as i see it they use any excuse to use a flashing light and to slow people down,

In france and spain the police keep the traffic moving even if there has been a serious accident on the carrigeway  they move the wreckage on to the hard shoulder and keep the traffic flowing.

We should pay these officers by results and give them ford escorts not big gas guzzlers like range rovers,

 

.

Why is this idea important?

The recent introduction of traffic officers on our motorways has in my view led to more delays and has not led to any reduction in motorway traffic hold-ups

Their job should be to keep traffic moving at all costs,but as i see it they use any excuse to use a flashing light and to slow people down,

In france and spain the police keep the traffic moving even if there has been a serious accident on the carrigeway  they move the wreckage on to the hard shoulder and keep the traffic flowing.

We should pay these officers by results and give them ford escorts not big gas guzzlers like range rovers,

 

.

Scrapping the CPC for drivers- immediately.

As the title suggests, this patronising and pointless exercise is testament to the fact that we have become a nanny state. Government departments are businesses and this is just another cynical ploy to create non-jobs and generate money. This is another sell out to Europe.

Drivers pass a LGV test to become professional drivers and employers should then train employees in any related activities as required. We DO NOT NEED and SHOULD NOT HAVE this ridiculous CPC. Myself, and ALL my fellow LGV employees at our depot are incensed by the entire concept.

Why is this idea important?

As the title suggests, this patronising and pointless exercise is testament to the fact that we have become a nanny state. Government departments are businesses and this is just another cynical ploy to create non-jobs and generate money. This is another sell out to Europe.

Drivers pass a LGV test to become professional drivers and employers should then train employees in any related activities as required. We DO NOT NEED and SHOULD NOT HAVE this ridiculous CPC. Myself, and ALL my fellow LGV employees at our depot are incensed by the entire concept.

Simplify ADR regulations for small goods vehicles

Currently, drivers of all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (ie Transit size and up) which are used to transport dangerous goods by road are required to take an ADR course and pass a test on the topic every 5 years.  Costs for this course are at least £300 per person, plus 2 to 5 days off work since the training course has to be attended in person.  The examination costs another £60 to £250, and is marked centrally by the Scottish Qualifications Agency.

Of course safety is important, but the ADR training course is over-the-top for drivers of small vehicles, and much too expensive for small companies.  It should be possible to take at least the refresher training online, or for small companies only operating small veicles (ie 3.5-5 tonnes) to have delegated authority to run the training courses and exams for their own staff once a manager has attended the training course and passed an exam.  Of course, the small company taking this responsibility would have to take on liability if they fail to run it properly.

The current system is bureaucratic, and adds nothing to the saftey of road users or drivers.  A huge industry has sprung up testing drivers, often cheating so that the instruction company can attain high pass marks.  It is box-checking and not value-added.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, drivers of all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (ie Transit size and up) which are used to transport dangerous goods by road are required to take an ADR course and pass a test on the topic every 5 years.  Costs for this course are at least £300 per person, plus 2 to 5 days off work since the training course has to be attended in person.  The examination costs another £60 to £250, and is marked centrally by the Scottish Qualifications Agency.

Of course safety is important, but the ADR training course is over-the-top for drivers of small vehicles, and much too expensive for small companies.  It should be possible to take at least the refresher training online, or for small companies only operating small veicles (ie 3.5-5 tonnes) to have delegated authority to run the training courses and exams for their own staff once a manager has attended the training course and passed an exam.  Of course, the small company taking this responsibility would have to take on liability if they fail to run it properly.

The current system is bureaucratic, and adds nothing to the saftey of road users or drivers.  A huge industry has sprung up testing drivers, often cheating so that the instruction company can attain high pass marks.  It is box-checking and not value-added.

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Why is this idea important?

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

simple law

We have too many laws applying to the motorist.

To enable any form of "aire" system to work, it is local authorities who need to have the means to remove persons and vehicles not complying with the rules ( limited days of stay, no commercial vehicles, etc. ) without recourse to the expensive and time consuming legal system as at present.

In France and Spain, if you do not move on when told to do so by the police, your vehicle can be impounded……so you move on !

Give councils this sort of backing, and they may stop their defensive attitude of height restrictions and No Camping signs.

Already, if you park your car illegally, it can be removed without court orders. Moving on those who abuse an "aire" system could be made as simple.

Why is this idea important?

We have too many laws applying to the motorist.

To enable any form of "aire" system to work, it is local authorities who need to have the means to remove persons and vehicles not complying with the rules ( limited days of stay, no commercial vehicles, etc. ) without recourse to the expensive and time consuming legal system as at present.

In France and Spain, if you do not move on when told to do so by the police, your vehicle can be impounded……so you move on !

Give councils this sort of backing, and they may stop their defensive attitude of height restrictions and No Camping signs.

Already, if you park your car illegally, it can be removed without court orders. Moving on those who abuse an "aire" system could be made as simple.

towing allowances on post 1997 driving licences

remove the 750kg maximum towing allowance on post 1997 driving licences, this seems a pointless restriction on drivers as the test did not change between these dates

Why is this idea important?

remove the 750kg maximum towing allowance on post 1997 driving licences, this seems a pointless restriction on drivers as the test did not change between these dates

Legalising Cannabis….No!..Not yet without further study of its effects whilst driving.

I agree the draconian laws that this country has concerning Cannabis legalisation must change for the better and not make criminals out of ordinary people.I believe people should have the right to decide for themselves whether they use Cannabis or not ,and not be told you can't by people who ignore their own panel of experts who express opinions that Cannabis should be legalised in some way.

Please Please Please Mr Clegg,dont do it yet!.My son of 14 who was waiting on the kerb to cross the road was killed 2 years ago by a driver speeding whilst under the influence of cannabis,impaired to such an extent that the police doctor called to assess him after the "accident",and i use that word lightly,decided that he was unfit to be interviewed until the following morning.

In court the charge of driving whilst under the influence of drugs was dropped as the defence lawyer argued that as no limits are in force,as there are with driving with alcohol, concerning driving whilst unfit through the use of cannabis.Subsequently the scumbag who killed my son was sentenced to serve a prison sentence of 17 months.

Dont bow to pressure and legalise cannabis without proper research into its effects whilst driving and BEFORE YOU DO,PLEASE GIVE THE POLICE THE EQUIPMENT TO TEST THE DRIVER AT THE ROADSIDE ,to make a judgement as to whether the driver is unfit to drive if using drugs.

Why is this idea important?

I agree the draconian laws that this country has concerning Cannabis legalisation must change for the better and not make criminals out of ordinary people.I believe people should have the right to decide for themselves whether they use Cannabis or not ,and not be told you can't by people who ignore their own panel of experts who express opinions that Cannabis should be legalised in some way.

Please Please Please Mr Clegg,dont do it yet!.My son of 14 who was waiting on the kerb to cross the road was killed 2 years ago by a driver speeding whilst under the influence of cannabis,impaired to such an extent that the police doctor called to assess him after the "accident",and i use that word lightly,decided that he was unfit to be interviewed until the following morning.

In court the charge of driving whilst under the influence of drugs was dropped as the defence lawyer argued that as no limits are in force,as there are with driving with alcohol, concerning driving whilst unfit through the use of cannabis.Subsequently the scumbag who killed my son was sentenced to serve a prison sentence of 17 months.

Dont bow to pressure and legalise cannabis without proper research into its effects whilst driving and BEFORE YOU DO,PLEASE GIVE THE POLICE THE EQUIPMENT TO TEST THE DRIVER AT THE ROADSIDE ,to make a judgement as to whether the driver is unfit to drive if using drugs.

Clarify Drink/Drive Alcohol Limits

Make the limit Zero.  Everyone will know where they stand. If you drink, you don't drive.

 

I'm no misery guts and I'm not anti-driving.  I like a drink and I like to drive.  I just keep the two activities apart. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Make the limit Zero.  Everyone will know where they stand. If you drink, you don't drive.

 

I'm no misery guts and I'm not anti-driving.  I like a drink and I like to drive.  I just keep the two activities apart. 

 

Abolish the London Congestion Charge to get London working

I would abolish the London Congestion Charge in its entirety because it is a tax on the poor, a tax on the worker, a tax on the business and in accordance with the Turnpike Act 1683 the revenue generated is not spent on the roads but public transport which is fraudulent.

The law that needs to be abolished is the Road User Charging (Charges & Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001 which may have reduced traffic a little and encouraged bicycle use but at £8 or perhaps £10 a day is totally unacceptable and a rip-off. This does not discourage use but prohibits use of the zone.

Anyway the charge is not an access charge but a road toll because buses, cyclists and the like don't have to pay it! Never mind the fact that there are computer problems with the system , number-plate cloning, parking problems outside the zone and the like.

Why is this idea important?

I would abolish the London Congestion Charge in its entirety because it is a tax on the poor, a tax on the worker, a tax on the business and in accordance with the Turnpike Act 1683 the revenue generated is not spent on the roads but public transport which is fraudulent.

The law that needs to be abolished is the Road User Charging (Charges & Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001 which may have reduced traffic a little and encouraged bicycle use but at £8 or perhaps £10 a day is totally unacceptable and a rip-off. This does not discourage use but prohibits use of the zone.

Anyway the charge is not an access charge but a road toll because buses, cyclists and the like don't have to pay it! Never mind the fact that there are computer problems with the system , number-plate cloning, parking problems outside the zone and the like.

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.

Test for the Elderly

The law should be amended to make it mandatory for a person, over the age of say 70, to be checked at the local test centre to ensure that they are still competent to be in charge of a motor vehicle.

The law as it now stands only requires that the driver completes a form attesting that he is in good health and capable to be in charge of a motor vehicle.

My father has only been forced to surrender his license after being hospitalised; age 90.

I took up this matter with the DVLA in Swansea on 2 occassion. The first they said that they would investigate but only sent him another form to complete and return.

The second time I advised that if he harmed hinmself of another member of the public, I would take this to the press.

Result – he was informed to attend a medical examination, at a choosing of the DVLA. He then surrender his license.

For those readers who may complain about hardship for the cost of the test at regular intervals, his insurance each year was over 700 pounds and that for a smallest Ford Fiesta.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The law should be amended to make it mandatory for a person, over the age of say 70, to be checked at the local test centre to ensure that they are still competent to be in charge of a motor vehicle.

The law as it now stands only requires that the driver completes a form attesting that he is in good health and capable to be in charge of a motor vehicle.

My father has only been forced to surrender his license after being hospitalised; age 90.

I took up this matter with the DVLA in Swansea on 2 occassion. The first they said that they would investigate but only sent him another form to complete and return.

The second time I advised that if he harmed hinmself of another member of the public, I would take this to the press.

Result – he was informed to attend a medical examination, at a choosing of the DVLA. He then surrender his license.

For those readers who may complain about hardship for the cost of the test at regular intervals, his insurance each year was over 700 pounds and that for a smallest Ford Fiesta.

 

 

Traffic stops for drugs and drunk driving

There should be more stop and check driver testing for drivers who are driving drunk or under drugs. Such as in NZ – there are often traffic stop points and this deters drinker etc 
On a weekend in London I would bet at least half of drivers are over the limit or on drugs.

Maybe borough police or traffic wardens could do this? It would be better to put money into this than the ridiculous parking fines and misleading signs – (which should be like the road code and have one design for all of the UK for what the parking means)

Why is this idea important?

There should be more stop and check driver testing for drivers who are driving drunk or under drugs. Such as in NZ – there are often traffic stop points and this deters drinker etc 
On a weekend in London I would bet at least half of drivers are over the limit or on drugs.

Maybe borough police or traffic wardens could do this? It would be better to put money into this than the ridiculous parking fines and misleading signs – (which should be like the road code and have one design for all of the UK for what the parking means)

No Need to Renew Driving Licence Photo every 10 years

Why have the driving licence photo renewed every 10 years? Do people really change that much in 10 years? I think not! This could be extended to every 20 years or preferably abolished all together, with the exception of a new licence at retirement / 70 or whichever was deemed most appropriate.

Why is this idea important?

Why have the driving licence photo renewed every 10 years? Do people really change that much in 10 years? I think not! This could be extended to every 20 years or preferably abolished all together, with the exception of a new licence at retirement / 70 or whichever was deemed most appropriate.

Controling drink-driving

It appears dangerous to me that people drink and drive. There is scientific evidence that people who are under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs are more likely to crash as they have lower reaction times. (however, it should be noted that this does not apply to uppers like cocaine or speed).

In order to lower the chance of an accident, peopel over the limit in regard to alcohol should be exempt from speeding restrictions. This means that they will travel faster on the roads, meaning that they will reach their destination quicker. Less time on the road will lower the chance of an accident.

This change in law will also reduce the number of rapes. Drunk people will often use unlicenced minicabs, and they are notorios for raping people. (the drivers and not the cabs) 😉

If properly regulated, the lives of children and old people will be saved.

Why is this idea important?

It appears dangerous to me that people drink and drive. There is scientific evidence that people who are under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs are more likely to crash as they have lower reaction times. (however, it should be noted that this does not apply to uppers like cocaine or speed).

In order to lower the chance of an accident, peopel over the limit in regard to alcohol should be exempt from speeding restrictions. This means that they will travel faster on the roads, meaning that they will reach their destination quicker. Less time on the road will lower the chance of an accident.

This change in law will also reduce the number of rapes. Drunk people will often use unlicenced minicabs, and they are notorios for raping people. (the drivers and not the cabs) 😉

If properly regulated, the lives of children and old people will be saved.

Cabbies asking if you have the plague

'It is illegal for cab drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses and by law they must ask all passengers if they have small pox or the plague.'

This law needs scrapping.

Maybe I don't want to tell a taxi driver my medical history….

Why is this idea important?

'It is illegal for cab drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses and by law they must ask all passengers if they have small pox or the plague.'

This law needs scrapping.

Maybe I don't want to tell a taxi driver my medical history….

Reinstatement of Driving Categories

Owing to an EU ruling enacted by the UK Government people who have passed their driving (car) test since 1997 have been only given the category B (motor vehicles not more than 3.5T and not more than 8 seats).

Previously anyone passing the test also had B+E, D1, D1+E, C1 and C1+E. This allowed them amongst other things to:

– tow a trailer more than 750kg (such as anything over a small caravan or a car transporter)

– drive vehicles up to 7.5T and up to 17 seats (though not for hire or reward)

Simply as the test became more difficult (theory test part added and the content of the practical updated) the ability to drive vehicles was reduced.

This was an enactment of an EU regulation (even though other EU countries set their own standards and can put restrictions on UK licence holders for example D1 category holders are not allowed to drive minibusses in most of Europe) without being considered within the UK directly.

Additionally allowing everyone who had previously passed the "simpler" test to keep their entitlements questions the "safety" logic of this move – if it is necessary to limit drivers to small vehicles then shouldn't that apply to everyone who has not passed a specific freight and /or PCV test.

I suggest this is reppealed and that everyone who has passed a car licence is allowed, not for professional or paid purposes, to tow trailers of a reasonable size and drive vehicles such as minibusses and small vans again.

Why is this idea important?

Owing to an EU ruling enacted by the UK Government people who have passed their driving (car) test since 1997 have been only given the category B (motor vehicles not more than 3.5T and not more than 8 seats).

Previously anyone passing the test also had B+E, D1, D1+E, C1 and C1+E. This allowed them amongst other things to:

– tow a trailer more than 750kg (such as anything over a small caravan or a car transporter)

– drive vehicles up to 7.5T and up to 17 seats (though not for hire or reward)

Simply as the test became more difficult (theory test part added and the content of the practical updated) the ability to drive vehicles was reduced.

This was an enactment of an EU regulation (even though other EU countries set their own standards and can put restrictions on UK licence holders for example D1 category holders are not allowed to drive minibusses in most of Europe) without being considered within the UK directly.

Additionally allowing everyone who had previously passed the "simpler" test to keep their entitlements questions the "safety" logic of this move – if it is necessary to limit drivers to small vehicles then shouldn't that apply to everyone who has not passed a specific freight and /or PCV test.

I suggest this is reppealed and that everyone who has passed a car licence is allowed, not for professional or paid purposes, to tow trailers of a reasonable size and drive vehicles such as minibusses and small vans again.