This loud very loud popping noise causes sever anxiety not just in people but especially animals my American bulldog nearly died by not eating had to buy calming medicine not that its worked. So we bought another bully for her a boy a companion for security and love and he absolutely hates them he tries to go for them vehicles now !.. They also scare people especially elderly it’s just not fair. Now my girl bullies refuses to walk and she’s getting fat how do you drag a big dog out if they don’t want to go at my wits end I wish they would just pop pop off thankyou
Why is this idea important?
This loud very loud popping noise causes sever anxiety not just in people but especially animals my American bulldog nearly died by not eating had to buy calming medicine not that its worked. So we bought another bully for her a boy a companion for security and love and he absolutely hates them he tries to go for them vehicles now !.. They also scare people especially elderly it’s just not fair. Now my girl bullies refuses to walk and she’s getting fat how do you drag a big dog out if they don’t want to go at my wits end I wish they would just pop pop off thankyou
Motorists pay huge road tax for driving on roads which are becoming narrower with every passing day while the number of cars are increasing. It is the duty of the local government to facilitate the motorists and not loot them by issuing PCNs for driving in an empty bus lane on a bank holiday.
Why is this idea important?
Motorists pay huge road tax for driving on roads which are becoming narrower with every passing day while the number of cars are increasing. It is the duty of the local government to facilitate the motorists and not loot them by issuing PCNs for driving in an empty bus lane on a bank holiday.
The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.
The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.
We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.
Why is this idea important?
The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.
The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.
We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.
Information re safe stopping distances and speed limits should to my mind be at the beginning of general information at 103 and not at 126 half way through. Speed, safe distance and stopping distances are all important right from the beginning and not how to give signals. etc. Sect 126 the 2 second rule is ambiguous and should be more factual and start at 2 seconds but go up at speeds shown in the safe stopping distances appropriately. So if the stopping distance at 60 miles per hour is 240ft [HC}and the distance travelled per second is 90ft then its more appropriate to have a 3 second gap and not a 2 second one. 3 seconds at 60mph.meaning a distance travelled of 270ft. a much safer distance than the 2 second gap of only 180ft. .
A safer distance on a motorway would again be the 3 second rule… at 70 mph a vehicle travels at 105ft per second and thus in 3 seconds it will travel 315ft or basically the 100 mtrs. The distance of the little white marker posts painted blue and red. on the side of the hard shoulder. Also of the 3 blue exiting off signs when driving towards a slip road off the motorway.
The 2 second rule is difficult for drivers to make that calculation finding an object and then counting 2 seconds correctly. What I suggest is that as street lighting in towns at 30 and 40 mph mph varies between 90 and 120 ft it is easy to be that distance between oneself and the vehicle in front. By doing so they are no longer tailgating at say 30 or 40ft but the fuller safer full stopping distance should that vehicle in front come to a sudden stop. On country roads at 50 and 60 mph. the Safer Space would be 2 lamp posts apart. Where no lamp posts exist then by allowing that space previously drivers would begin to be able to determine that space themselves.
Many driver believe that they are safe at that shorter distance because they have miss read the HC about sudden slowing and stopping. They allow something like only the thinking distance and when they see the brake lights of the vehicle in front come on they brake also in tandem so to speak. They fail to recognise that if the vehicle in front does stop suddenly in a short distance having hit something then they will have no chance to avoid a collision and generally will complain that it was not their fault as they had no time to brake. Many accidents of this nature occur on the motorways where insufficient space is given in relation to the speed or in town urban scenarios with heavier traffic.
So I believe for modern day driving a change of attitude towards Safe Space is Necessary and forget the now overated attitude that we have with speed .
It needs tidying up and bringing forward to the beginning of driving and drivers awareness., To have Safe Space in front of one is to be driving alone with fewer dangers.
PS the two chevron rule on a motorway is not the full stopping distance at 70 mph and so can be dangerous if followed./adopted.
Why is this idea important?
Information re safe stopping distances and speed limits should to my mind be at the beginning of general information at 103 and not at 126 half way through. Speed, safe distance and stopping distances are all important right from the beginning and not how to give signals. etc. Sect 126 the 2 second rule is ambiguous and should be more factual and start at 2 seconds but go up at speeds shown in the safe stopping distances appropriately. So if the stopping distance at 60 miles per hour is 240ft [HC}and the distance travelled per second is 90ft then its more appropriate to have a 3 second gap and not a 2 second one. 3 seconds at 60mph.meaning a distance travelled of 270ft. a much safer distance than the 2 second gap of only 180ft. .
A safer distance on a motorway would again be the 3 second rule… at 70 mph a vehicle travels at 105ft per second and thus in 3 seconds it will travel 315ft or basically the 100 mtrs. The distance of the little white marker posts painted blue and red. on the side of the hard shoulder. Also of the 3 blue exiting off signs when driving towards a slip road off the motorway.
The 2 second rule is difficult for drivers to make that calculation finding an object and then counting 2 seconds correctly. What I suggest is that as street lighting in towns at 30 and 40 mph mph varies between 90 and 120 ft it is easy to be that distance between oneself and the vehicle in front. By doing so they are no longer tailgating at say 30 or 40ft but the fuller safer full stopping distance should that vehicle in front come to a sudden stop. On country roads at 50 and 60 mph. the Safer Space would be 2 lamp posts apart. Where no lamp posts exist then by allowing that space previously drivers would begin to be able to determine that space themselves.
Many driver believe that they are safe at that shorter distance because they have miss read the HC about sudden slowing and stopping. They allow something like only the thinking distance and when they see the brake lights of the vehicle in front come on they brake also in tandem so to speak. They fail to recognise that if the vehicle in front does stop suddenly in a short distance having hit something then they will have no chance to avoid a collision and generally will complain that it was not their fault as they had no time to brake. Many accidents of this nature occur on the motorways where insufficient space is given in relation to the speed or in town urban scenarios with heavier traffic.
So I believe for modern day driving a change of attitude towards Safe Space is Necessary and forget the now overated attitude that we have with speed .
It needs tidying up and bringing forward to the beginning of driving and drivers awareness., To have Safe Space in front of one is to be driving alone with fewer dangers.
PS the two chevron rule on a motorway is not the full stopping distance at 70 mph and so can be dangerous if followed./adopted.
At the moment, if you get caught speeding you get points and a fine.
They should make the fines cost more. and not give points for speeding.
points should be used for other related issues.
Why is this idea important?
At the moment, if you get caught speeding you get points and a fine.
They should make the fines cost more. and not give points for speeding.
points should be used for other related issues.
If you pass a CBT it runs out after 2 years.
This should either be longer. or it should not run out at all
Why is this idea important?
If you pass a CBT it runs out after 2 years.
This should either be longer. or it should not run out at all
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.
I believe there should be more restrictions and laws governing the use of modified car exhausts. We have many, many, laws governing noise nuisance by neighbour’s… sterio’s etc but we are now bombarded by loud car exhausts. They are attracting more and more attention now and the police are picking up on it too now. I believe the decibel rating is 82db but I don’t know if that is idling or running. The police are now stopping and checking the decibel rating and I would like this rolled out on a country wide scale.
I cannot understand the ethos behind these exhausts other than to attract attention to the driver of these vehicles. But those of us whom do enjoy our cars and our sleep of a night are annoyed by these ‘boy-racers’ whom create this anti-social noise. No one has come up with a suitable explanation as to why have them in the first place?? On a race track it’s fine but not on public roads. There should be legislation and a ban on them.
Why is this idea important?
I believe there should be more restrictions and laws governing the use of modified car exhausts. We have many, many, laws governing noise nuisance by neighbour’s… sterio’s etc but we are now bombarded by loud car exhausts. They are attracting more and more attention now and the police are picking up on it too now. I believe the decibel rating is 82db but I don’t know if that is idling or running. The police are now stopping and checking the decibel rating and I would like this rolled out on a country wide scale.
I cannot understand the ethos behind these exhausts other than to attract attention to the driver of these vehicles. But those of us whom do enjoy our cars and our sleep of a night are annoyed by these ‘boy-racers’ whom create this anti-social noise. No one has come up with a suitable explanation as to why have them in the first place?? On a race track it’s fine but not on public roads. There should be legislation and a ban on them.
The DVLA allows to to request a form D1 to be sent to you by post, which costs them time and postage. Why not simply make the form D1 available to download as a PDF document on their website?
Why is this idea important?
The DVLA allows to to request a form D1 to be sent to you by post, which costs them time and postage. Why not simply make the form D1 available to download as a PDF document on their website?
I have received a penalty charge notice for being in a bus lane on a Bank Holiday Monday.
A bank holiday is, for all other purposes, equivalent to a Sunday and bus timetables reflect this too. Local authorities (eg: Ealing in West London) should not be allowed to penalise motorists simply because the authority has not passed a byelaw confirming that a Bank Holiday should be treated the same as a Sunday for road traffic act purposes.
The rationale for bus lanes is to speed the flow of buses not to penalise otherwise law abiding citizens.
Why is this idea important?
I have received a penalty charge notice for being in a bus lane on a Bank Holiday Monday.
A bank holiday is, for all other purposes, equivalent to a Sunday and bus timetables reflect this too. Local authorities (eg: Ealing in West London) should not be allowed to penalise motorists simply because the authority has not passed a byelaw confirming that a Bank Holiday should be treated the same as a Sunday for road traffic act purposes.
The rationale for bus lanes is to speed the flow of buses not to penalise otherwise law abiding citizens.
For the common good, there is a need to repeal current unrealistic Drink Driving Laws, but certainly a need to enforce Drunken Driver Laws.
Why the current drink driving limits and the even more preposterous “Zero Tolerance” or “Not a Drop” measures are beyond all logic; and to think that people vote for these clowns???
The human body produces alcohol naturally… end of story, but I must go on!
Endogenous ethanol production is the term for alcohol being produced naturally within the body through fermentation of its contents in the gut. Depending on diet and other factors; up to about one ounce or 3 grams of pure ethanol (alcohol) is produced within the body each day. That amount equals almost two standard drinks of beer, wine or liquor.
Catabolic degradation of ethanol is essential to life, not only to humans, but to almost all living organisms, hence when you put your favourite alcoholic beverage to your lips your body says, Ooh, thank you so much!
Additionally, there is a condition known as “auto-brewery syndrome”, where intestinal overgrowth of Candida or other yeasts in the gut, eat our bodily sugars and convert them into pure ethanol (alcohol, which is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and is sometimes rather large quantities equivalent to having several drinks of beer, wine or liquor. This is most common in people who have been on long-term antibiotics or immunosuppressant drugs and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK on long-term antibiotics and who have Candida or other yeast infections, and many more people that don’t even know they have the infections. People with this condition, who eat large amounts of carbohydrates such as rice, can actually feel drunk after eating, and chronic fatigue is the most common symptom, hence why you usually feel sleepy after a meal.
Just like most laws, they are conjured up by a handful of individuals with an ulterior purpose and not for the purpose to which they lead you to believe, i.e., “saving lives”. Politicians couldn’t give a damn about preventing injuries or saving people’s lives, other than their own. As usual, they do not consult with any experts in the particular field for which the purpose of the law will affect, i.e., the ambulance and fire services who have battled with politicians for years to remove speed humps as they are putting more lives at risk than they are saving, and yet the local authorities are still installing them, blatantly obvious, to keep people in jobs and to line their own pockets. Politicians rely purely on the scaremongering tactics that they have systematically inflicted on the masses, they don’t need to follow ‘due process protocols’ and they don’t want any expert involvement because it would expose the ulterior motive’ behind the laws they wish to implement.
Why is this idea important?
For the common good, there is a need to repeal current unrealistic Drink Driving Laws, but certainly a need to enforce Drunken Driver Laws.
Why the current drink driving limits and the even more preposterous “Zero Tolerance” or “Not a Drop” measures are beyond all logic; and to think that people vote for these clowns???
The human body produces alcohol naturally… end of story, but I must go on!
Endogenous ethanol production is the term for alcohol being produced naturally within the body through fermentation of its contents in the gut. Depending on diet and other factors; up to about one ounce or 3 grams of pure ethanol (alcohol) is produced within the body each day. That amount equals almost two standard drinks of beer, wine or liquor.
Catabolic degradation of ethanol is essential to life, not only to humans, but to almost all living organisms, hence when you put your favourite alcoholic beverage to your lips your body says, Ooh, thank you so much!
Additionally, there is a condition known as “auto-brewery syndrome”, where intestinal overgrowth of Candida or other yeasts in the gut, eat our bodily sugars and convert them into pure ethanol (alcohol, which is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and is sometimes rather large quantities equivalent to having several drinks of beer, wine or liquor. This is most common in people who have been on long-term antibiotics or immunosuppressant drugs and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK on long-term antibiotics and who have Candida or other yeast infections, and many more people that don’t even know they have the infections. People with this condition, who eat large amounts of carbohydrates such as rice, can actually feel drunk after eating, and chronic fatigue is the most common symptom, hence why you usually feel sleepy after a meal.
Just like most laws, they are conjured up by a handful of individuals with an ulterior purpose and not for the purpose to which they lead you to believe, i.e., “saving lives”. Politicians couldn’t give a damn about preventing injuries or saving people’s lives, other than their own. As usual, they do not consult with any experts in the particular field for which the purpose of the law will affect, i.e., the ambulance and fire services who have battled with politicians for years to remove speed humps as they are putting more lives at risk than they are saving, and yet the local authorities are still installing them, blatantly obvious, to keep people in jobs and to line their own pockets. Politicians rely purely on the scaremongering tactics that they have systematically inflicted on the masses, they don’t need to follow ‘due process protocols’ and they don’t want any expert involvement because it would expose the ulterior motive’ behind the laws they wish to implement.
Lmit one vehicle to a family of 2 when each person is in receipt of the allowance
Why is this idea important?
Lmit one vehicle to a family of 2 when each person is in receipt of the allowance
This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.
What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.
However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.
Why is this idea important?
This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.
What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.
However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.
With some authorties removing speed cameras altogether perhaps a better solution would be to convert all speed cameras to ANPR cameras and catch uninsured untaxed vehicles and possibly unlicensed drivers.
With modern technology the Cameras could be linked by radio to the national computer and a message sent out to police vehicles in the area of "suspicious vehicles." a patrol car in the area could then intercept and investgate, assuming it wasn't on more important business.
speed cameras could then possibly be replace by flashing "overspeed" warning signs.
Why is this idea important?
With some authorties removing speed cameras altogether perhaps a better solution would be to convert all speed cameras to ANPR cameras and catch uninsured untaxed vehicles and possibly unlicensed drivers.
With modern technology the Cameras could be linked by radio to the national computer and a message sent out to police vehicles in the area of "suspicious vehicles." a patrol car in the area could then intercept and investgate, assuming it wasn't on more important business.
speed cameras could then possibly be replace by flashing "overspeed" warning signs.
It's well overdue that an "officially metric" country such as ours should demonstrate that offical line by changing the existing out-of-date road signs to metric. Most British drivers have been 100% educated in metric, and everyone's used to sports events using metric measurements for everything.
It is possibly not obvious that delaying any further on the speed-limits issue is actually a direct problem. However, is *is* a problem and here's why:
Councils all across the country are installing more and more radar-operated speed-warning signs as a technique for encouraging motorists to slow down where appropriate. ( I have no problem with that, it's a far better method than making criminals of perfectly good people who just happen to be looking out of the windscreen at the road rather than fixating on what their speedo says! )
However – these radar-triggered signs are in many cases physically built with arrays of LEDs that form the shape of a red roundel with "30" or "20" written inside just like the fixed speed-linit signs. And therein lies the problem.
When the inevitable switch to metric road signs does happen, those signs are going to need to be rebuilt. It's likely not to be the sort of thing that can be done by a council road gang at the side of the road. The signs will probably need to be de-mounted, taken back to the depot, changed, and then re-fitted. The "changed" bit might even require the sign to be sent back to the manufacturer.
This is going to cost MONEY. The longer we leave the switchover to km/h the worse it will get.
So the claim of this thread is – please repeal the out-of-date requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions that are forcing the use of miles and miles-per-hour on our signs, and join the rest of the world using km and km/h.
The UK does have a land border with another country (Eire) that already uses km/h on its signs. You get to drive faster on de-limited Irish roads too because 120km/h is faster than 70mph.
Why is this idea important?
It's well overdue that an "officially metric" country such as ours should demonstrate that offical line by changing the existing out-of-date road signs to metric. Most British drivers have been 100% educated in metric, and everyone's used to sports events using metric measurements for everything.
It is possibly not obvious that delaying any further on the speed-limits issue is actually a direct problem. However, is *is* a problem and here's why:
Councils all across the country are installing more and more radar-operated speed-warning signs as a technique for encouraging motorists to slow down where appropriate. ( I have no problem with that, it's a far better method than making criminals of perfectly good people who just happen to be looking out of the windscreen at the road rather than fixating on what their speedo says! )
However – these radar-triggered signs are in many cases physically built with arrays of LEDs that form the shape of a red roundel with "30" or "20" written inside just like the fixed speed-linit signs. And therein lies the problem.
When the inevitable switch to metric road signs does happen, those signs are going to need to be rebuilt. It's likely not to be the sort of thing that can be done by a council road gang at the side of the road. The signs will probably need to be de-mounted, taken back to the depot, changed, and then re-fitted. The "changed" bit might even require the sign to be sent back to the manufacturer.
This is going to cost MONEY. The longer we leave the switchover to km/h the worse it will get.
So the claim of this thread is – please repeal the out-of-date requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions that are forcing the use of miles and miles-per-hour on our signs, and join the rest of the world using km and km/h.
The UK does have a land border with another country (Eire) that already uses km/h on its signs. You get to drive faster on de-limited Irish roads too because 120km/h is faster than 70mph.
At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing. This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company. This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.
Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays? Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year. A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.
Why is this idea important?
At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing. This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company. This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.
Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays? Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year. A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.
The design of our towns and cities leaves a lot to be desired when coping with the unforseen traffic levels for when they were designed. Most 'A' roads are of single lane construction and where the roads widen are often littered with parked vehicles.
A free and easy way to alleviate traffic problems is to ban parking along these 'A' roads which would add to safety and help keep the traffic moving.
It may inconvenience a few motorists but for the greater good it will help solve a problem that can be operated almost overnight at little or no cost.
Why is this idea important?
The design of our towns and cities leaves a lot to be desired when coping with the unforseen traffic levels for when they were designed. Most 'A' roads are of single lane construction and where the roads widen are often littered with parked vehicles.
A free and easy way to alleviate traffic problems is to ban parking along these 'A' roads which would add to safety and help keep the traffic moving.
It may inconvenience a few motorists but for the greater good it will help solve a problem that can be operated almost overnight at little or no cost.
One of the biggest daily holdups is that at the Dartford Crossing. Tolls are collected both Southbound and Northbound. Why not cancel either of these tolls and instead just double the toll on the other. This method is already used on the Severn crossing.
Why is this idea important?
One of the biggest daily holdups is that at the Dartford Crossing. Tolls are collected both Southbound and Northbound. Why not cancel either of these tolls and instead just double the toll on the other. This method is already used on the Severn crossing.
.I think it would be safer to remove speed limits on motorways.
Why is this idea important?
.I think it would be safer to remove speed limits on motorways.
Once upon a time in Britain there was a growing industrythat provided kits for converting rusting relics to fun and exciting 30's-style roadsters and many other forms, using GRP body tubs and a host of replica 'period' fittings and accessories. Building these cars provided enjoyable involvement and spare-time occupation for thousands of people, and driving them around on summer weekends was a fun activity that harmed no-one.
Every car built had of course to pass an MOT test, that ensured that it was mechanically safe and met all statutory requirements regarding lighting, seat belt anchorages, structural strength etc. etc. Then about 10 years ago, for no apparent reason at all, the DVLA introduced the 'Single Vehicle Approval' process for all kit-built cars, involving conformity with a host of ridiculous reguirements about 'minimum radius' edges, BS approved steering wheels and so on, that it isvirtually impossible for any period-style kit car to meet. Almost overnight, a useful and fun British industry was killed, and thousands of long-term builders were left with part-complete vehicles they could never hope to get on the road. Now the regulations are being even futher tightened to bring all those existing kit cars that are 'incorrectly registered' – that is, still retain the base 'donor' car identity – into the net, even if they have been on the road perhaps for years, been taxed and MOT'd etc..
There is simply no need for these laws. Kit cars can never meet regulations designed for mass production vehicles – they are lightweight 'specials' generally used for low-mileage weekend fun driving by their dedicated owners. They can never be as 'safe' for the drivers as the steel tanks produced by the car industry, but are safer for both driver and pedestrians than road-legal motorcycles, trikes or cycle/sidecar 'combos', by a very wide margin. There is no history of any particular problems associated with kit cars – on the contrary, insurance premiums are typically low, because kit cars tend NOT to be involved in accidents.
To revive a quirky British industry and to restore the freedom to have a bit of fun to all those who own or would like to build a kit car, the requirment to go through an SVA/IVA test should be abolished and replaced by an extended initial MOT test carried out at a local garage, to ensure build standard, general safety, and conformity with all statutory requirements, but no more.
Why is this idea important?
Once upon a time in Britain there was a growing industrythat provided kits for converting rusting relics to fun and exciting 30's-style roadsters and many other forms, using GRP body tubs and a host of replica 'period' fittings and accessories. Building these cars provided enjoyable involvement and spare-time occupation for thousands of people, and driving them around on summer weekends was a fun activity that harmed no-one.
Every car built had of course to pass an MOT test, that ensured that it was mechanically safe and met all statutory requirements regarding lighting, seat belt anchorages, structural strength etc. etc. Then about 10 years ago, for no apparent reason at all, the DVLA introduced the 'Single Vehicle Approval' process for all kit-built cars, involving conformity with a host of ridiculous reguirements about 'minimum radius' edges, BS approved steering wheels and so on, that it isvirtually impossible for any period-style kit car to meet. Almost overnight, a useful and fun British industry was killed, and thousands of long-term builders were left with part-complete vehicles they could never hope to get on the road. Now the regulations are being even futher tightened to bring all those existing kit cars that are 'incorrectly registered' – that is, still retain the base 'donor' car identity – into the net, even if they have been on the road perhaps for years, been taxed and MOT'd etc..
There is simply no need for these laws. Kit cars can never meet regulations designed for mass production vehicles – they are lightweight 'specials' generally used for low-mileage weekend fun driving by their dedicated owners. They can never be as 'safe' for the drivers as the steel tanks produced by the car industry, but are safer for both driver and pedestrians than road-legal motorcycles, trikes or cycle/sidecar 'combos', by a very wide margin. There is no history of any particular problems associated with kit cars – on the contrary, insurance premiums are typically low, because kit cars tend NOT to be involved in accidents.
To revive a quirky British industry and to restore the freedom to have a bit of fun to all those who own or would like to build a kit car, the requirment to go through an SVA/IVA test should be abolished and replaced by an extended initial MOT test carried out at a local garage, to ensure build standard, general safety, and conformity with all statutory requirements, but no more.
Parking or side lights should be abolished. Everyone should use dipped headlights in poor visibility.
Why is this idea important?
Parking or side lights should be abolished. Everyone should use dipped headlights in poor visibility.
Drivers recognise that they now are more at risk on the roads with the ever increasing number of new drivers and careless ones, so driving without insurance really is unacceptable. Whilst it is understandable that young and inexperienced drivers pay more for their premium, it doesn't seem fair that they are excluded from being able to apply for short term car insurance.
Many young people are not in a financial position to easily afford their annual car insurance, so temporary car insurance for when they need it could be a more accessible solution. It seems unfair that a certain age group 17 – 21 year olds are discriminated as well as those with less than 12 months driving experience.
My idea would be to ensure that insurance companies offer short term car insurance deals to all ages of drivers regardless of experience. Yes younger and inexperienced drivers will pay more, but they should at least have the opportunity to go down this route.
Why is this idea important?
Drivers recognise that they now are more at risk on the roads with the ever increasing number of new drivers and careless ones, so driving without insurance really is unacceptable. Whilst it is understandable that young and inexperienced drivers pay more for their premium, it doesn't seem fair that they are excluded from being able to apply for short term car insurance.
Many young people are not in a financial position to easily afford their annual car insurance, so temporary car insurance for when they need it could be a more accessible solution. It seems unfair that a certain age group 17 – 21 year olds are discriminated as well as those with less than 12 months driving experience.
My idea would be to ensure that insurance companies offer short term car insurance deals to all ages of drivers regardless of experience. Yes younger and inexperienced drivers will pay more, but they should at least have the opportunity to go down this route.
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?
The only action the government need s to take is putting a nationally recommended cap on the maximum amount chargeable and making the clampers contribute to an adjudication body in the event of complaints. This would, arguably, be little different to the suffessfully operated mechanism by which the national minimum wage is run.
Why is this idea important?
The only action the government need s to take is putting a nationally recommended cap on the maximum amount chargeable and making the clampers contribute to an adjudication body in the event of complaints. This would, arguably, be little different to the suffessfully operated mechanism by which the national minimum wage is run.
The rule that restricts most lorries from driving at more than 40 mph on non-dual carraigeway roads is presumably there in an attempt to increase safety, but is actually positively dangerous, and should be repealed.
Why is this idea important?
The rule that restricts most lorries from driving at more than 40 mph on non-dual carraigeway roads is presumably there in an attempt to increase safety, but is actually positively dangerous, and should be repealed.