Removal of the 70 mph motorway limit

 

The 70 mph motorway limit is a relic of the past. Introduced in 1965 when cars lacked the modern safety features that almost every car on Britain's roads today have.  Today most drivers ignore the limit anyway, so why not scrap it completely? At the very least it should be raised.
The autobahn system in which an advisory speed limit of 80 mph is set is very effective and there is no noticeable difference in casualties between German autobahns and British motorways. The fact is for many days of the year it is perfectly safe for a vehicle to travel at speeds greater than 70 mph. And for those days where it isn't? Well I'm sure the British public have the ability to exercise some degree of common sense.

Why is this idea important?

 

The 70 mph motorway limit is a relic of the past. Introduced in 1965 when cars lacked the modern safety features that almost every car on Britain's roads today have.  Today most drivers ignore the limit anyway, so why not scrap it completely? At the very least it should be raised.
The autobahn system in which an advisory speed limit of 80 mph is set is very effective and there is no noticeable difference in casualties between German autobahns and British motorways. The fact is for many days of the year it is perfectly safe for a vehicle to travel at speeds greater than 70 mph. And for those days where it isn't? Well I'm sure the British public have the ability to exercise some degree of common sense.

Renewal of driving licence at age 70. Why?

Under the current law everyone's driving licence expires on their 70th birthday, and they have to reapply to DVLA. This they can do online, and simply consists of ticking boxes. Provided the answers are favourable, a new licence is then issued. What is the point of this? Drivers are already under a legal obligation not to drive if there is a medical reason why they would not be safe (eg someone who wears glasses, of whatever age, would be liable to prosecution if they failed to use them). This procedure adds nothing. If it is really thought to be necessary to remind drivers of this requirement, why not include a leaflet with vehicle excise renewal notices, or print a reminder on the licence itself?

Why is this idea important?

Under the current law everyone's driving licence expires on their 70th birthday, and they have to reapply to DVLA. This they can do online, and simply consists of ticking boxes. Provided the answers are favourable, a new licence is then issued. What is the point of this? Drivers are already under a legal obligation not to drive if there is a medical reason why they would not be safe (eg someone who wears glasses, of whatever age, would be liable to prosecution if they failed to use them). This procedure adds nothing. If it is really thought to be necessary to remind drivers of this requirement, why not include a leaflet with vehicle excise renewal notices, or print a reminder on the licence itself?

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.

 

Speed Bumps

As a law-abiding motorist, speed bumps  ( cushions or humps) are an insult. Speed bumps are used by local authorities to satisfy the "need-to-be-seen-doing-something" demand of public opinion. Furthermore, speed bumps penalise smaller fuel efficient vehicle users whilst larger vehicles such as people carriers are exempt. My local Council informs me that speed bumps are targeted in lower income areas where their is a higher risk of danger(which doesnt exist I have discovered through a FOI request). This means that those who are reliant on a vehicle are more susceptible to continuos damage and expense all to satisfy the perception of politicians.
 Also, speedbumps are constructed in various shapes and sizes, so there is no "right" way to go over them. Councils tell us that if you are travelling within the speed limit then their shouldnt be any damage to your vehicle, but local repairmen know differently.
I am proposing that the building of speedbumps should be scrapped, and when the current ones are in disrepair then they should be removed. I am in favour of 20mph zones and other speed calming measures( such as single lane traffic) but speed bumps are only there to punish the law abiding majority.
 Furthermore, speedbumps are being put in areas where there has been NO accidents as a result of speed, further strengthening the view that local councillors all over Britain are using speedbumps to make themselves look good and not using our money to tackle the real problems on our roads like potholes.
The burden on motorists is already huge and having to repair our suspension everytime we go for an  MOT is theft.

Why is this idea important?

As a law-abiding motorist, speed bumps  ( cushions or humps) are an insult. Speed bumps are used by local authorities to satisfy the "need-to-be-seen-doing-something" demand of public opinion. Furthermore, speed bumps penalise smaller fuel efficient vehicle users whilst larger vehicles such as people carriers are exempt. My local Council informs me that speed bumps are targeted in lower income areas where their is a higher risk of danger(which doesnt exist I have discovered through a FOI request). This means that those who are reliant on a vehicle are more susceptible to continuos damage and expense all to satisfy the perception of politicians.
 Also, speedbumps are constructed in various shapes and sizes, so there is no "right" way to go over them. Councils tell us that if you are travelling within the speed limit then their shouldnt be any damage to your vehicle, but local repairmen know differently.
I am proposing that the building of speedbumps should be scrapped, and when the current ones are in disrepair then they should be removed. I am in favour of 20mph zones and other speed calming measures( such as single lane traffic) but speed bumps are only there to punish the law abiding majority.
 Furthermore, speedbumps are being put in areas where there has been NO accidents as a result of speed, further strengthening the view that local councillors all over Britain are using speedbumps to make themselves look good and not using our money to tackle the real problems on our roads like potholes.
The burden on motorists is already huge and having to repair our suspension everytime we go for an  MOT is theft.

Ban loud vehicle exhaust modification

Ban people modifying their cars and bikes to have louder exhausts than the ones they come with. There is no reason what so ever for these people to have loud exhausts apart from misguided vanity, yet the general public have to put up with their right to peace and quiet being removed by a few idiots. Ban this pointless modification culture now, as I'm sure it will only get worse.

Why is this idea important?

Ban people modifying their cars and bikes to have louder exhausts than the ones they come with. There is no reason what so ever for these people to have loud exhausts apart from misguided vanity, yet the general public have to put up with their right to peace and quiet being removed by a few idiots. Ban this pointless modification culture now, as I'm sure it will only get worse.

Scrap the Annual MoT for Passenger Cars

Every passenger car in Britain is required by law to submit to an annual examination to ensure it is fit for purpose and is roadworthy. A sound idea, one would think. Unfortunately it is open to abuse by certain unscrupulous dealers and garages, which results in cars being unfairly scrapped.

In a society like ours, where so many businesses are under pressure to meet sales targets, the temptation to "modify the facts" has proven irresistable to many used-car dealers. They have only to promise "kick-backs" to some garages to have the annual MoT certification failed. Often such failure is synonymous with expensive repairs, which leaves the owner thinking it might be the better solution to scrap the car and replace it with a new, albeit used, model. This enables the dealer to meet targets and the garage to increase profits, whilst the car owner is, as usual, left paying out more money. This is not true of every used car dealer, but is certainly more common than one might think.

Scrapping the current legislation whereby the MoT certificate has to be renewed every year with a more sensible arrangement would go a long way toward improving the situation.

One option would be to require certification based on distance travelled. Thus a car used extensively for work or pleasure might require certification once a year; while a car used for once a fortnight shopping, and one or two mainland holidays need only be examined every three years or so.

It is interesting to note that in the European Union, where so many rules that adversely affect the British way of life are generated, their directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 requires an examination once every two years.

Ireland, France, Germany, Japan and Singapore, to name just a few, are countries that also require cars to be certified as roadworthy every two years. There is no good reason to plague us with annual MoT certification.

Why is this idea important?

Every passenger car in Britain is required by law to submit to an annual examination to ensure it is fit for purpose and is roadworthy. A sound idea, one would think. Unfortunately it is open to abuse by certain unscrupulous dealers and garages, which results in cars being unfairly scrapped.

In a society like ours, where so many businesses are under pressure to meet sales targets, the temptation to "modify the facts" has proven irresistable to many used-car dealers. They have only to promise "kick-backs" to some garages to have the annual MoT certification failed. Often such failure is synonymous with expensive repairs, which leaves the owner thinking it might be the better solution to scrap the car and replace it with a new, albeit used, model. This enables the dealer to meet targets and the garage to increase profits, whilst the car owner is, as usual, left paying out more money. This is not true of every used car dealer, but is certainly more common than one might think.

Scrapping the current legislation whereby the MoT certificate has to be renewed every year with a more sensible arrangement would go a long way toward improving the situation.

One option would be to require certification based on distance travelled. Thus a car used extensively for work or pleasure might require certification once a year; while a car used for once a fortnight shopping, and one or two mainland holidays need only be examined every three years or so.

It is interesting to note that in the European Union, where so many rules that adversely affect the British way of life are generated, their directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 requires an examination once every two years.

Ireland, France, Germany, Japan and Singapore, to name just a few, are countries that also require cars to be certified as roadworthy every two years. There is no good reason to plague us with annual MoT certification.

The MOT Test

Have a complete revamp of the MOT test to get rid of all the unnecessary and non safety related items that are tested.

1) is that the indicator bulbs are not yellow enough

2) Bodywork. on some cars areas of bodywork are not conducive to safety and could rot through without affecting safety.

3) The European Car Testing Regulations CONSLEG: 1996L0096 – 20/11/2003 (77/143/EEC) give a fairer indication of areas to test and are of a safety nature. The start of implementation was 1977, but sucessive governments have decided to ignore this and place more and more unnecessary items to look at on the list (in conjunction  with the MOT Testers Association, who are only making work for their members).

 

Why is this idea important?

Have a complete revamp of the MOT test to get rid of all the unnecessary and non safety related items that are tested.

1) is that the indicator bulbs are not yellow enough

2) Bodywork. on some cars areas of bodywork are not conducive to safety and could rot through without affecting safety.

3) The European Car Testing Regulations CONSLEG: 1996L0096 – 20/11/2003 (77/143/EEC) give a fairer indication of areas to test and are of a safety nature. The start of implementation was 1977, but sucessive governments have decided to ignore this and place more and more unnecessary items to look at on the list (in conjunction  with the MOT Testers Association, who are only making work for their members).

 

Mandatory Annual Eye Tests For All Drivers ?

During my experience of riding shotgun in wagons since I was 13, then driving wagons for a living 300K Km a year for 15 years, plus my subsequent car driving following other people making a total of over 30 years on the road. I have noticed that there is something funny about the actions of some drivers. The key to this was a past older friend who was not very good at seeing and freaked out if you drove him as a passenger above 30 Mph. Obviously he didn't drive himself although he once had a probably illegal small 120cc motor-bike for a short time. According to the latest statistics there are 20% of drivers who would fail the eyesight test on the roads today. With not looking being the greatest alleged cause of accidents, perhaps many of these accidents are avoidable if you root out those who actually can't see to look properly.

One may be asking how these potentially blind drivers manage to keep on the roads and get from A to B, but its a simple case of finding your way from point to point at a given speed. It was normally the case that dense fog would not significantly slow my progress along the A59 on the way to Skipton at 5 AM in the morning. It was simply a case of learning the route at a said speed / time, the only time you had to slow down was when you had to slow down for any other traffic and get temporarily lost. Then it was just a case of finding the next fixed recognised point on the road and carrying along as usual. It is probably the case that people slamming on the brakes when they get " lost " on motorways in fog causes major accidents. My mum was totally blind for the last few years of her life and could easily navigate around our home like a sighted person just so long a the furniture was not moved. If any strangers came in they did not realise she was blind unless she told them. Before she went blind she was an excellent driver.

Potentially blind drivers may be driving around in the equivalent of dense fog at all times. They normally travel at about 40 Mph everywhere, ( any slower and they know they would stick out like a sore thumb ) and usually have a very long queue behind them on roads with a faster speed limit. It is usually the case that the diver causing the queue is fitted with " Jam Jar " spectacles when you finally pass them on a dual carriageway. Blind drivers are also easy to spot when they stop on the line at roundabouts when all those in the following usual queue can see that the road is clear to proceed. I believe that accidents caused by cars stopping unexpectedly at roundabouts have significantly increased over the past few years. Although some could be due to insurance scams, I suspect that more are caused by blind drivers stopping for no good reason.

By now you may be asking why the government has not introduced annual eye-sight testing for all drivers considering all the other measures it passes allegedly in the interest of road safety. Perhaps the simple fact is that the government actually like lots of road accidents just so long as they don't kill the wage slaves. With disability benefits generally low and relatively difficult to claim the government has nothing to loose by crippling quite a few people every year. Accidents generate a lot of tax revenue in VAT etc. plus the blind drivers are far more likely to be caught by a speed camera in a 30 limit, so plenty of extra revenue from speeding fines. The government also benefits from the extra congestion caused by blind drivers, more in fuel tax and now they are considering congestion charging nationwide. Perhaps it should be up to the insurance companies to require all drivers to produce evidence of good eye-sight when they apply for their new policy each year, perhaps they could offer a discount if one did this. Once again its a case of money comes first, more insurance claims and people with speed camera convictions means higher prices for policies and as third party insurance is a legal requirement to drive they can charge whatever they want.

You also have to ask where the majority of the high profile road safety lobby are when it comes to eye-sight testing, plenty of ban this cut that but not a word on probably one of the most important factors for road safety. The simple truth is that high profile road safety groups like Brake are generally funded by the motor industry itself, and therefore campaigning for the introduction of a measure which could cut 20% of their sponsors best customers is out of the question.

It would be fairly easy to organise a simple but effective eye-sight testing facility at GP's health centres in the treatment room. The test could be on a walk in basis and free to the user and carried out by a member of the nursing staff. Perhaps the test could be phased in starting with older drivers then rolled out to cover everyone with a driving licence around their birthday.
 

BBC Action Network Blog Response

I couldn't agree more.

You have acurately described my (now deceased) father.

Suffering from macular degeneration, and repeatedly arriving home complaining of how foggy it was (on a clear day) he only decided to stop driving after three crashes into parked cars (no injuries thankfully) and when the compulsory eye test (at eighty, I think) was due.

Being in a car with him was terrifying to the extreme. My mother refused to go out with him. He would simply pull out at roundabouts with a belligerent "they'll get out of my way". He really had no idea if something was coming or not.

It is insane to allow people to drive in this state of health and as my selfish father proved – you cannot rely on people to police themselves."

Why is this idea important?

During my experience of riding shotgun in wagons since I was 13, then driving wagons for a living 300K Km a year for 15 years, plus my subsequent car driving following other people making a total of over 30 years on the road. I have noticed that there is something funny about the actions of some drivers. The key to this was a past older friend who was not very good at seeing and freaked out if you drove him as a passenger above 30 Mph. Obviously he didn't drive himself although he once had a probably illegal small 120cc motor-bike for a short time. According to the latest statistics there are 20% of drivers who would fail the eyesight test on the roads today. With not looking being the greatest alleged cause of accidents, perhaps many of these accidents are avoidable if you root out those who actually can't see to look properly.

One may be asking how these potentially blind drivers manage to keep on the roads and get from A to B, but its a simple case of finding your way from point to point at a given speed. It was normally the case that dense fog would not significantly slow my progress along the A59 on the way to Skipton at 5 AM in the morning. It was simply a case of learning the route at a said speed / time, the only time you had to slow down was when you had to slow down for any other traffic and get temporarily lost. Then it was just a case of finding the next fixed recognised point on the road and carrying along as usual. It is probably the case that people slamming on the brakes when they get " lost " on motorways in fog causes major accidents. My mum was totally blind for the last few years of her life and could easily navigate around our home like a sighted person just so long a the furniture was not moved. If any strangers came in they did not realise she was blind unless she told them. Before she went blind she was an excellent driver.

Potentially blind drivers may be driving around in the equivalent of dense fog at all times. They normally travel at about 40 Mph everywhere, ( any slower and they know they would stick out like a sore thumb ) and usually have a very long queue behind them on roads with a faster speed limit. It is usually the case that the diver causing the queue is fitted with " Jam Jar " spectacles when you finally pass them on a dual carriageway. Blind drivers are also easy to spot when they stop on the line at roundabouts when all those in the following usual queue can see that the road is clear to proceed. I believe that accidents caused by cars stopping unexpectedly at roundabouts have significantly increased over the past few years. Although some could be due to insurance scams, I suspect that more are caused by blind drivers stopping for no good reason.

By now you may be asking why the government has not introduced annual eye-sight testing for all drivers considering all the other measures it passes allegedly in the interest of road safety. Perhaps the simple fact is that the government actually like lots of road accidents just so long as they don't kill the wage slaves. With disability benefits generally low and relatively difficult to claim the government has nothing to loose by crippling quite a few people every year. Accidents generate a lot of tax revenue in VAT etc. plus the blind drivers are far more likely to be caught by a speed camera in a 30 limit, so plenty of extra revenue from speeding fines. The government also benefits from the extra congestion caused by blind drivers, more in fuel tax and now they are considering congestion charging nationwide. Perhaps it should be up to the insurance companies to require all drivers to produce evidence of good eye-sight when they apply for their new policy each year, perhaps they could offer a discount if one did this. Once again its a case of money comes first, more insurance claims and people with speed camera convictions means higher prices for policies and as third party insurance is a legal requirement to drive they can charge whatever they want.

You also have to ask where the majority of the high profile road safety lobby are when it comes to eye-sight testing, plenty of ban this cut that but not a word on probably one of the most important factors for road safety. The simple truth is that high profile road safety groups like Brake are generally funded by the motor industry itself, and therefore campaigning for the introduction of a measure which could cut 20% of their sponsors best customers is out of the question.

It would be fairly easy to organise a simple but effective eye-sight testing facility at GP's health centres in the treatment room. The test could be on a walk in basis and free to the user and carried out by a member of the nursing staff. Perhaps the test could be phased in starting with older drivers then rolled out to cover everyone with a driving licence around their birthday.
 

BBC Action Network Blog Response

I couldn't agree more.

You have acurately described my (now deceased) father.

Suffering from macular degeneration, and repeatedly arriving home complaining of how foggy it was (on a clear day) he only decided to stop driving after three crashes into parked cars (no injuries thankfully) and when the compulsory eye test (at eighty, I think) was due.

Being in a car with him was terrifying to the extreme. My mother refused to go out with him. He would simply pull out at roundabouts with a belligerent "they'll get out of my way". He really had no idea if something was coming or not.

It is insane to allow people to drive in this state of health and as my selfish father proved – you cannot rely on people to police themselves."

HISTORIC VEHICLE VED DISC DISPLAY

Currently most, if not all police traffic cars are equipped with number plate recognition kit [ANPR] and there are numerous static readers.These can identify vehicles without mot and insurance as well as valid ved.

 My suggestion for a relatively modest but nontheless worthwhile government financial saving and also to remove the threat of prosecution for the non display of a free issue ved disc, is to abolish the need for historic vehicles to display such discs. 

Police traffic officers will be well aware of the regs covering historic vehicle status and old cars are fairly obvious but ANPR would be the safeguard against cheating .

The number of historic vehicle on the road will be a matter of record at DVLA and the cost of issuing 'free' discs easily calculable.My own ad hoc guess is c£1m pa

Why is this idea important?

Currently most, if not all police traffic cars are equipped with number plate recognition kit [ANPR] and there are numerous static readers.These can identify vehicles without mot and insurance as well as valid ved.

 My suggestion for a relatively modest but nontheless worthwhile government financial saving and also to remove the threat of prosecution for the non display of a free issue ved disc, is to abolish the need for historic vehicles to display such discs. 

Police traffic officers will be well aware of the regs covering historic vehicle status and old cars are fairly obvious but ANPR would be the safeguard against cheating .

The number of historic vehicle on the road will be a matter of record at DVLA and the cost of issuing 'free' discs easily calculable.My own ad hoc guess is c£1m pa

Restore National Speed Limits

Many County Councils are imposing without proper consultation 50 and 40 mph limits on good roads because the the can and to reduce accidents.  One county in particular, Oxfordshire, unless you are on the major trunk roads, the county is rapidly reducing speed limits throughout rural areas and former A roads.

Examples are A4421, A417, A4260 and many many rural roads.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Many County Councils are imposing without proper consultation 50 and 40 mph limits on good roads because the the can and to reduce accidents.  One county in particular, Oxfordshire, unless you are on the major trunk roads, the county is rapidly reducing speed limits throughout rural areas and former A roads.

Examples are A4421, A417, A4260 and many many rural roads.

 

 

Remove the 25Kw restriction for motorcyclists under 21

The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that a motorbike at full power makes any difference to how likely they would be involved with an accident, compared to a motorbike at 25Kw, in fact it could be said that the restricted motorbike is more dangerous.

All this law does is cost the new rider additional money to get in to motorcycling legally, but serves no real purpose.

As an example, the 25Kw restriction and labour can cost up to and beyond £200.

For reference, 25Kw equals about 33Bhp.

Why is this idea important?

The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that a motorbike at full power makes any difference to how likely they would be involved with an accident, compared to a motorbike at 25Kw, in fact it could be said that the restricted motorbike is more dangerous.

All this law does is cost the new rider additional money to get in to motorcycling legally, but serves no real purpose.

As an example, the 25Kw restriction and labour can cost up to and beyond £200.

For reference, 25Kw equals about 33Bhp.

Ellimination of all motor vehicles from cities centres.

No private motor vehicles to enter into a designated radius from the city centre.

Electified public transport should cover all  transport needs in the cities of the nation. Multi-storied car parks to be built above railway stations some considerable distance from the city centre. Car owners must park and ride public transport into the no vehicle zones. Every street in the non car zones must be serviced by public transport. A small fee to be charged for using the buses, trams or monorail services.

Why is this idea important?

No private motor vehicles to enter into a designated radius from the city centre.

Electified public transport should cover all  transport needs in the cities of the nation. Multi-storied car parks to be built above railway stations some considerable distance from the city centre. Car owners must park and ride public transport into the no vehicle zones. Every street in the non car zones must be serviced by public transport. A small fee to be charged for using the buses, trams or monorail services.

Scrap differential speed limits for goods vehicles

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Out and About: Mending Broken Britain

1. Walkways on all ways in Britain with wider more pleasant pavements in towns/villages/cities to encourage people to want to walk down the road.

Why dont people walk on the pavements?

a) Because many ways in Britain dont have any and you would be run over walking down narrow country roads which dont have any pavement. In these instances create walkways, if necessary behind ancient hedgerows so all pedestrians can travel down all the ways of Britain. The car should not have priority over the individual. I have taken holidays with my children in Britains country cottages and been hostage to travelling by car. It is a disgrace.

b) Because narrow or no pavements are unpleasant places to travel along compared to car use. I am 50 years old and would like to have a pavement wide enough not to have lorry dust blown into my face when I walk, to be able to pass looked after planters (looked after by community members) and seats for the elderly. To have the highway code give pedestrians greater  right over cars so they can cross roads more easily. Will it happen in my lifetime? I hope so!

2. Cycle lanes on all ways in Britain for the reasons above. I cannot cummute to work as I would be certain to be knocked off my bike at some time. The odd 50m of cycle lane at a junction doesn't help.

It may be necessary to push building lines back to allow wider pavements and cycle lanes to be incorporated into the fabric of our communities.

Why is this idea important?

1. Walkways on all ways in Britain with wider more pleasant pavements in towns/villages/cities to encourage people to want to walk down the road.

Why dont people walk on the pavements?

a) Because many ways in Britain dont have any and you would be run over walking down narrow country roads which dont have any pavement. In these instances create walkways, if necessary behind ancient hedgerows so all pedestrians can travel down all the ways of Britain. The car should not have priority over the individual. I have taken holidays with my children in Britains country cottages and been hostage to travelling by car. It is a disgrace.

b) Because narrow or no pavements are unpleasant places to travel along compared to car use. I am 50 years old and would like to have a pavement wide enough not to have lorry dust blown into my face when I walk, to be able to pass looked after planters (looked after by community members) and seats for the elderly. To have the highway code give pedestrians greater  right over cars so they can cross roads more easily. Will it happen in my lifetime? I hope so!

2. Cycle lanes on all ways in Britain for the reasons above. I cannot cummute to work as I would be certain to be knocked off my bike at some time. The odd 50m of cycle lane at a junction doesn't help.

It may be necessary to push building lines back to allow wider pavements and cycle lanes to be incorporated into the fabric of our communities.

The Law and Car Insurance

The Law of the Land says that if we drive we must have the appropriate Insurance in place.  This is fair enough, but with Insurance Companies imposing more and more restrictions on who  they will Insure and under what circumstances, it is becoming clear, that being ' sure' that you are 'actually' insured is more difficult.  Web-sites quote assumptions that are made before we apply, but these are not always easy to locate.  Documentation is becoming very complicated and  often there is a clause saying that we  should disclose anything we are not sure about that may be a 'material' fact, otherwise we may not be insured, even if we think we are.  The lines are being constantly redrawn and the goalposts moved and the situation is becoming overly confused. A premium is paid for the benefit of insuring us against the unforeseen. Yes there must be some eligibility requirements, but these should be set out in a clear and concise manner, where a specific question is asked and the relevant answer is given, whether application is by web, post or phone.  It should be  the responsibility of the Insurer to decide whether or not to insure having asked specific questions, received specific answers and having completed  any of their own checks that they feel necessary.   It should not be the responsibility of the individual to rack their brains as to whether of not they have revealed some fact that may possibly  be  'material'.  After making the decision to insure and the Insurer having collected premiums, it should be clear to the policyholder that their Insurance is in place for the duration of the policy.  Although it may be only vehicle Insurance that is required by Law all forms of Insurance should come under scrutiny.

Why is this idea important?

The Law of the Land says that if we drive we must have the appropriate Insurance in place.  This is fair enough, but with Insurance Companies imposing more and more restrictions on who  they will Insure and under what circumstances, it is becoming clear, that being ' sure' that you are 'actually' insured is more difficult.  Web-sites quote assumptions that are made before we apply, but these are not always easy to locate.  Documentation is becoming very complicated and  often there is a clause saying that we  should disclose anything we are not sure about that may be a 'material' fact, otherwise we may not be insured, even if we think we are.  The lines are being constantly redrawn and the goalposts moved and the situation is becoming overly confused. A premium is paid for the benefit of insuring us against the unforeseen. Yes there must be some eligibility requirements, but these should be set out in a clear and concise manner, where a specific question is asked and the relevant answer is given, whether application is by web, post or phone.  It should be  the responsibility of the Insurer to decide whether or not to insure having asked specific questions, received specific answers and having completed  any of their own checks that they feel necessary.   It should not be the responsibility of the individual to rack their brains as to whether of not they have revealed some fact that may possibly  be  'material'.  After making the decision to insure and the Insurer having collected premiums, it should be clear to the policyholder that their Insurance is in place for the duration of the policy.  Although it may be only vehicle Insurance that is required by Law all forms of Insurance should come under scrutiny.

Noise polluting reversing alarms on heavy goods vehicles

Amend the "Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986" legislation mandating the operation of an audible warning devices on reversing vehicles.

These audible warning devices do little for safety but create a cacophony of undesirable noise pollution.

Such devices presume an unwitting person will stand clear. However, if they miss the lorry movement and its engine noise they’ll be oblivious to a loud bleeper, won’t they?

Instead, legislate to install high mounted rear facing camera on heavy vehicles with restricted rear vision so the driver can properly see obstructions.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the "Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986" legislation mandating the operation of an audible warning devices on reversing vehicles.

These audible warning devices do little for safety but create a cacophony of undesirable noise pollution.

Such devices presume an unwitting person will stand clear. However, if they miss the lorry movement and its engine noise they’ll be oblivious to a loud bleeper, won’t they?

Instead, legislate to install high mounted rear facing camera on heavy vehicles with restricted rear vision so the driver can properly see obstructions.