Peak Hours Congestion

HGVs (all including foreign) should have to buy a special day permit to allow them to drive on any road during peak traffic hours, e.g. 7.00am to 9.30am and 4.30pm to 7.00pm. The tarrif should be quite high to e.g. £50 in order to dissuade usage. Fines for non-payment should be of the order of £500 and the owner of the HGV should be liable. The same type of cameras used to manage the congestion charge shoudl be employed to enforce as should current speed cameras. HGVs should not be allowed to leave the country until such time as all outstanding fines are paid.

Why is this idea important?

HGVs (all including foreign) should have to buy a special day permit to allow them to drive on any road during peak traffic hours, e.g. 7.00am to 9.30am and 4.30pm to 7.00pm. The tarrif should be quite high to e.g. £50 in order to dissuade usage. Fines for non-payment should be of the order of £500 and the owner of the HGV should be liable. The same type of cameras used to manage the congestion charge shoudl be employed to enforce as should current speed cameras. HGVs should not be allowed to leave the country until such time as all outstanding fines are paid.

National no car day

This goverment should introduce a national no car day,all cars should be baned from our roads for one day every year say christmas day, and our motorways and main roads should be opened up to dog walkers and bicycles,

Why is this idea important?

This goverment should introduce a national no car day,all cars should be baned from our roads for one day every year say christmas day, and our motorways and main roads should be opened up to dog walkers and bicycles,

Don’t scrap clamping on private land, regulate it and the release fees

Regulate clamping companies and release fees and/or strengthen private PCN's and put them on the same footing as local authority parking charge notices (i.e. criminal not civil law).

Why is this idea important?

Regulate clamping companies and release fees and/or strengthen private PCN's and put them on the same footing as local authority parking charge notices (i.e. criminal not civil law).

Driving licence points

The current driving licence points systems was devised before speed cameras etc.  I am constantly on the road and have accumulated 9 points in a short space of time (one 31mph in 30mph limit).  Either we should only let points stand on the licence for one year or given the number of potential traps we should allow 30 points.  I and many others risk losing the livelihoods because of this.  Or even take away losing the licence and replace it with community service etc.

Why is this idea important?

The current driving licence points systems was devised before speed cameras etc.  I am constantly on the road and have accumulated 9 points in a short space of time (one 31mph in 30mph limit).  Either we should only let points stand on the licence for one year or given the number of potential traps we should allow 30 points.  I and many others risk losing the livelihoods because of this.  Or even take away losing the licence and replace it with community service etc.

Motorway congestion

Police Patrols should issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who fail to obey the Highway Code by driving on the left except when overtaking. Basically, if there is a gap in front of you then you should be safely moving to the left.

Ban lorries from lane 2 on dual carriageways and both outside lanes on motorways. Make the minimum speed for cars and other vehicles that can use motorways the same as the maximum speed for lorries.

Remind van drivers that their speed limit is 60mph and therefore should be banned from lane 3 on 3 lane moroways.

Variable speed restictions work to increase FLOW of traffic, so would minimum speed at certain times of the day

If vehicles cannot maintain this minimum speed, even uphill, then they should be banned during certain busy periods.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Police Patrols should issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who fail to obey the Highway Code by driving on the left except when overtaking. Basically, if there is a gap in front of you then you should be safely moving to the left.

Ban lorries from lane 2 on dual carriageways and both outside lanes on motorways. Make the minimum speed for cars and other vehicles that can use motorways the same as the maximum speed for lorries.

Remind van drivers that their speed limit is 60mph and therefore should be banned from lane 3 on 3 lane moroways.

Variable speed restictions work to increase FLOW of traffic, so would minimum speed at certain times of the day

If vehicles cannot maintain this minimum speed, even uphill, then they should be banned during certain busy periods.

 

 

Speed Limits

Abolish them all, accept that some people are better able to drive carefully at whatever speed than others, the only time when people need to get points on their licence is when their driving could be argued to constitute a risk to other road users.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish them all, accept that some people are better able to drive carefully at whatever speed than others, the only time when people need to get points on their licence is when their driving could be argued to constitute a risk to other road users.

History and Highways

All these old Highways and or BYWAYS that have been closed to vehicles, in many cases this is MADNESS the history of past travellers and Drovers that used these tracks and Byways is amazing and most  folk whether they be Ramblers, Horse riders, Cyclists, Motorcyclists and 4X4 Drivers do take intrest and appreciate these routes. Since the MASS of Tracks / Byways that have been closed to many, Predominately 4wheeled vehicles. Not only have WE the 4X4 Owner/Drivers lost out . But for the fact that 4x4s the vehicles and the various Groups/Clubs that drive these vehicles can not clear back overgrown foliage and repair any damage to surfaces as they, believe it or not are known to do. " Tread Lightly"…… " Glass"…….. " Crag" and many more. So the Ramblersand Horse Riders of this beautiful country are losing out as well.

The Majority of 4×4 Drivers when coming across Walkers and Horses STOP , CUT their ENGINES and  " HOPEFULLY " get a good reception from the on coming Walkers and Riders…….. BUT NOT ALWAYS.

The Govenment and councils if they took the time to find out could get so much HELP from all the 4×4 Clubs and Groups that the whole nation would benefit from More Open Countryside and LESS LOST HISTORY.

Yes there is a MINORITY of Persons that don't take note of the Code of Conduct ….. BUT They can be DEALT WITH.

LETS OPEN UP AND APPRECIATE the WHOLE of THE U.K.

Why is this idea important?

All these old Highways and or BYWAYS that have been closed to vehicles, in many cases this is MADNESS the history of past travellers and Drovers that used these tracks and Byways is amazing and most  folk whether they be Ramblers, Horse riders, Cyclists, Motorcyclists and 4X4 Drivers do take intrest and appreciate these routes. Since the MASS of Tracks / Byways that have been closed to many, Predominately 4wheeled vehicles. Not only have WE the 4X4 Owner/Drivers lost out . But for the fact that 4x4s the vehicles and the various Groups/Clubs that drive these vehicles can not clear back overgrown foliage and repair any damage to surfaces as they, believe it or not are known to do. " Tread Lightly"…… " Glass"…….. " Crag" and many more. So the Ramblersand Horse Riders of this beautiful country are losing out as well.

The Majority of 4×4 Drivers when coming across Walkers and Horses STOP , CUT their ENGINES and  " HOPEFULLY " get a good reception from the on coming Walkers and Riders…….. BUT NOT ALWAYS.

The Govenment and councils if they took the time to find out could get so much HELP from all the 4×4 Clubs and Groups that the whole nation would benefit from More Open Countryside and LESS LOST HISTORY.

Yes there is a MINORITY of Persons that don't take note of the Code of Conduct ….. BUT They can be DEALT WITH.

LETS OPEN UP AND APPRECIATE the WHOLE of THE U.K.

Vehicle licensing and drivers licenses – removal of the need for paper counterparts

My idea is to remove the legal requirement to keep a paper copy of a vehicle registration certificate and paper counterpart of a drivers license. Not only are these documents a paid to keep safe and somewhere one can find them, but apparently the paper on which they are printed is strangely valuable as new driver's license counterpart replacements for lost/defaced ones costs over £20 and new registration certificates cost £25.

The DVLA and police have these details on file and are able to access them without the need for paper copies. So why should we be required to have paper copies?

 

Let me give a bit of background to explain my position and also admittedly a bit of a rant:

 

I am a first-time car owner and, on trying to find out when I needed to MOT the car, I was told that I needed my 'logbook' in order to do this. I'll state this now, this is not the issue, but I promise that I am getting to it! I looked through all my documents and found nothing which bore the name 'logbook', so I paid £25 for one to be sent out.

Around 2 weeks later I got a document from the DVLA, looking forward to having the necessary documentation in order to find out when I had to MOT my vehicle I opened it to find a new registration certificate, but I already had one of those, it was a logbook which I needed (at no point was I made aware that a registration certificate is the same as a logbook, this is not on any documentation) I was quite angry that I had been charged £25 only to be sent the wrong document and I ripped it up and threw it away. I knew that it was at least a few months away.

Three months later, or so, I got my road tax bill (again, the paper is strangely valuable) and on trying to pay it, I was told my registration certificate wasn't valid (the had received at the time of purchasing the vehicle), I didn't understand this so I queried it, but still had the money and wanted to pay the road tax. He advised me that I had been sent a new one, so the one I had in my hand was no longer valid. After much slightly heated discussion he agreed to give me the number from the replacement document which I had thrown away, so that I could pay it, but I had to use the DVLA phone service to renew my road tax (I'm not even going to start about their phone service). He told me that I would also need another new vehicle registration certificate and it would cost me £25.

Needless to say I was outraged, I knew it was only £25, but I'm not well off. As anyone knows, in this financial climate, £25 is quite a lot of money to shell out for something, especially when you'd already paid  £25 unnecessarily, due to not being given the appropriate information (that a vehicle registration document is a logbook).

My apologies for the rambling, but this an issue I feel very strongly about. I have been pulled over twice: once for putting my headlights on after my vehicle had been in motion for less than a second (a very minor incident to which I wasn't even given a warning for) and the other time, I am quite ashamed of this, for running a red light at 1 o'clock in the morning (sober, I might add, I'm am completely against drink driving) on an empty road (apart from the police car, apparently), for this I was given a warning. Neither time was I asked for any documentation, not even my drivers license photocard which begs the question why do we really need to have them?

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to remove the legal requirement to keep a paper copy of a vehicle registration certificate and paper counterpart of a drivers license. Not only are these documents a paid to keep safe and somewhere one can find them, but apparently the paper on which they are printed is strangely valuable as new driver's license counterpart replacements for lost/defaced ones costs over £20 and new registration certificates cost £25.

The DVLA and police have these details on file and are able to access them without the need for paper copies. So why should we be required to have paper copies?

 

Let me give a bit of background to explain my position and also admittedly a bit of a rant:

 

I am a first-time car owner and, on trying to find out when I needed to MOT the car, I was told that I needed my 'logbook' in order to do this. I'll state this now, this is not the issue, but I promise that I am getting to it! I looked through all my documents and found nothing which bore the name 'logbook', so I paid £25 for one to be sent out.

Around 2 weeks later I got a document from the DVLA, looking forward to having the necessary documentation in order to find out when I had to MOT my vehicle I opened it to find a new registration certificate, but I already had one of those, it was a logbook which I needed (at no point was I made aware that a registration certificate is the same as a logbook, this is not on any documentation) I was quite angry that I had been charged £25 only to be sent the wrong document and I ripped it up and threw it away. I knew that it was at least a few months away.

Three months later, or so, I got my road tax bill (again, the paper is strangely valuable) and on trying to pay it, I was told my registration certificate wasn't valid (the had received at the time of purchasing the vehicle), I didn't understand this so I queried it, but still had the money and wanted to pay the road tax. He advised me that I had been sent a new one, so the one I had in my hand was no longer valid. After much slightly heated discussion he agreed to give me the number from the replacement document which I had thrown away, so that I could pay it, but I had to use the DVLA phone service to renew my road tax (I'm not even going to start about their phone service). He told me that I would also need another new vehicle registration certificate and it would cost me £25.

Needless to say I was outraged, I knew it was only £25, but I'm not well off. As anyone knows, in this financial climate, £25 is quite a lot of money to shell out for something, especially when you'd already paid  £25 unnecessarily, due to not being given the appropriate information (that a vehicle registration document is a logbook).

My apologies for the rambling, but this an issue I feel very strongly about. I have been pulled over twice: once for putting my headlights on after my vehicle had been in motion for less than a second (a very minor incident to which I wasn't even given a warning for) and the other time, I am quite ashamed of this, for running a red light at 1 o'clock in the morning (sober, I might add, I'm am completely against drink driving) on an empty road (apart from the police car, apparently), for this I was given a warning. Neither time was I asked for any documentation, not even my drivers license photocard which begs the question why do we really need to have them?

Reduce the cost of road signage

1. Go back to the old system of only having two traffic lights at junctions.  In recent years I have been at junctons and facing seven or eight sets of lights.  Completely unnecessary and a waste of our taxes

2. Cut down on the use of road signs particularty in country areas.  Unnecessary chevrons on bends, huge, ugly  30mph signs above the name of the village for example.

3. Have one sign on the left hand side of the road not one on each side of the road. We drive on the left don't we so why always two signs facing the oncoming motorist ?

4. Turn off unnecessary lights. Cars have lights.  

Why is this idea important?

1. Go back to the old system of only having two traffic lights at junctions.  In recent years I have been at junctons and facing seven or eight sets of lights.  Completely unnecessary and a waste of our taxes

2. Cut down on the use of road signs particularty in country areas.  Unnecessary chevrons on bends, huge, ugly  30mph signs above the name of the village for example.

3. Have one sign on the left hand side of the road not one on each side of the road. We drive on the left don't we so why always two signs facing the oncoming motorist ?

4. Turn off unnecessary lights. Cars have lights.  

CLAMPING BAN OR REGULATE?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

Why is this idea important?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

Everyone should pass the same HGV test to get Licence to drive on UK roads.

When I worked in retail a few years ago, a lot of the HGV delivery drivers where agency drivers from Poland. And what I noticed was, they all had trouble turning their waggons to our delivery entrance. They all tried cutting corners as if driving a car, and they all kept getting stuck! I had to physically walk them along the road and tell them exactly where to start their turn in order to get round the corner. They didn't have a clue!!

I mentioned this to one of the English drivers and he informed me that the Polish drivers had never past HGV driving tests. They where all driving HGV waggons on agracultural licences. Seems if you can get a licence to drive a tractor or other farm vehicle in Poland, then that qualifies you to drive a HGV in this country.

So scrap the law that allows this to happen and make everyone pass the same tests.

Why is this idea important?

When I worked in retail a few years ago, a lot of the HGV delivery drivers where agency drivers from Poland. And what I noticed was, they all had trouble turning their waggons to our delivery entrance. They all tried cutting corners as if driving a car, and they all kept getting stuck! I had to physically walk them along the road and tell them exactly where to start their turn in order to get round the corner. They didn't have a clue!!

I mentioned this to one of the English drivers and he informed me that the Polish drivers had never past HGV driving tests. They where all driving HGV waggons on agracultural licences. Seems if you can get a licence to drive a tractor or other farm vehicle in Poland, then that qualifies you to drive a HGV in this country.

So scrap the law that allows this to happen and make everyone pass the same tests.

Get rid of laws which specify what is dangerous driving

Dangerous driving should be punished because it is dangerous.  People should not be punished for, for example, driving while talking on a mobile phone.  It is only a problem if it is dangerous in which case there is already a law for it and no need for all these specific laws and crimes.

Why is this idea important?

Dangerous driving should be punished because it is dangerous.  People should not be punished for, for example, driving while talking on a mobile phone.  It is only a problem if it is dangerous in which case there is already a law for it and no need for all these specific laws and crimes.

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.

Clamp Gypsy Vehicles that tresspass on Private/Goverment Land

We all know that the clamping law has now been revoked, but we still have the problem with Gypsys tresspassing on private and goverment owned land. Solution would be to Clamp thier vehicles and fine them a large penalty or risk having thier vehicles towed away. They're most likely not taxed or insured anyway, so this would be a good way to keep our roads safe and our countryside clean. The money collected could help re'tarmac the roads, maybe we could have our roads as good as Germany does.

Why is this idea important?

We all know that the clamping law has now been revoked, but we still have the problem with Gypsys tresspassing on private and goverment owned land. Solution would be to Clamp thier vehicles and fine them a large penalty or risk having thier vehicles towed away. They're most likely not taxed or insured anyway, so this would be a good way to keep our roads safe and our countryside clean. The money collected could help re'tarmac the roads, maybe we could have our roads as good as Germany does.

Driving licence points

As we all know you only need 12 points on your driving licence to lose it. To be given points for non excessive speeding is draconian. My idea is to remove points for speeding (but not other offences) but to increase the fines.

 

1 – People don't slow down for speed cameras unless they see them. Often people still speed as demonstrated by the fact that they still get caught by speed cameras. The threat of points doesn’t work.

2 – The reason for speed cameras is not safety but cash generation as shown by the fact that they are now being switched off on areas following recent government cuts. If speed reduction was the real incentive then physical measures would have been created eg chicanes, bumps etc.

3 – Physical barriers are cheaper to install and maintain than cameras and could be used in quieter areas and for busier roads then fines but not points should be used. The fines should be steeper than present and could rise sharply. Financial penalties are more effective in most cases. If we had a £100 fine which doubled for each subsequent fine you'd soon see speeding reduced. If the fines can't be paid then you take the car; it should be treated with the same severity as MOT and insurance infringements.

4 – Points should be retained for severe speeding offences (say 50 mph in a 30 mph zone)  and other offences (drink driving, dangerous driving, driving without insurance/MOT etc) to reflect the risk.

5 – People resent speed cameras because of the points. Adjust the approach and people will be less antagonistic.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

As we all know you only need 12 points on your driving licence to lose it. To be given points for non excessive speeding is draconian. My idea is to remove points for speeding (but not other offences) but to increase the fines.

 

1 – People don't slow down for speed cameras unless they see them. Often people still speed as demonstrated by the fact that they still get caught by speed cameras. The threat of points doesn’t work.

2 – The reason for speed cameras is not safety but cash generation as shown by the fact that they are now being switched off on areas following recent government cuts. If speed reduction was the real incentive then physical measures would have been created eg chicanes, bumps etc.

3 – Physical barriers are cheaper to install and maintain than cameras and could be used in quieter areas and for busier roads then fines but not points should be used. The fines should be steeper than present and could rise sharply. Financial penalties are more effective in most cases. If we had a £100 fine which doubled for each subsequent fine you'd soon see speeding reduced. If the fines can't be paid then you take the car; it should be treated with the same severity as MOT and insurance infringements.

4 – Points should be retained for severe speeding offences (say 50 mph in a 30 mph zone)  and other offences (drink driving, dangerous driving, driving without insurance/MOT etc) to reflect the risk.

5 – People resent speed cameras because of the points. Adjust the approach and people will be less antagonistic.

 

 

Removal of police power to sieze vehicles used off road

I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed

Why is this idea important?

I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed

Motorway speed limits – review and increase or eliminate altogether.

The maximum motorway speed limit in the UK is set at an unrealistically low level, given the advances in technology of modern vehicles in respect of speed and safety.

The limit should ideally be removed altogether as in Germany but, if that is too much of a step to take in one go, at least it should be increased to 85 MPH, which would approximate with that which applies in France.

It goes without saying that a) vehicles should be driven at a speed which takes account of the prevailing conditions, which may mean that it is appropriate to drive at a lower speed than the limit, just as at present, and b) motorway sections which are regularly congested may be subject to lower temporary  or permanent limits, as at present.

Why is this idea important?

The maximum motorway speed limit in the UK is set at an unrealistically low level, given the advances in technology of modern vehicles in respect of speed and safety.

The limit should ideally be removed altogether as in Germany but, if that is too much of a step to take in one go, at least it should be increased to 85 MPH, which would approximate with that which applies in France.

It goes without saying that a) vehicles should be driven at a speed which takes account of the prevailing conditions, which may mean that it is appropriate to drive at a lower speed than the limit, just as at present, and b) motorway sections which are regularly congested may be subject to lower temporary  or permanent limits, as at present.

Abolish the law that requires road signs to be illuminated

The law that requires road signs to be illuminated with their own lamps should be repealed.

Many road signs in villages, towns and cities are illuminated with their own lamp,  which is unnecessary; it is unnecessary because road signs are reflective in car headlights; and it is unnecessary because they are already illuminated by the main street lights.

To illuminate such signs with a third source of light – their own lamp positioned above them – is a monumental waste of money, a major waste of energy and a big contributor to the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The law requiring road signs to be independently lit should therefore be scrapped, to save taxpayers' money and to save the environment.

The disadvantages of individually lit road signs are:

1) The lighting units are costly to buy and install, wasting taxpayers' money.

2) The units are costly to maintain, wasting more money.

3) The units are costly to power, wasting money,

4) Collectively, road-sign lamps use a lot of energy and create harmful greenhouse gases. Many of the automatic light sensors or timers on these lamps are broken, meaning that even during the day they are turned on.

5) They are visual eyesores and a source of light pollution and ; even in well-lit cities and towns road-sign lamps spoil the urban environment, especially in old centres and conservation areas.

Highways and lighting engineers claim that road signs need their own illumination lamps for safety and information purposes, but they are wrong on two counts: a) they underestimate the reflective power of the signs; b) they underestimate the amount of light shed on them by ordinary street lights.

If you want proof that illuminated road signs are pointless, just go to the Netherlands. On a recent trip to Amsterdam, I did NOT see a SINGLE road sign that had its own illuminating lamp – all relied on their reflective qualities and ambient lighting provided by ordinary street lights. I have travelled to many other European countries and, although I cannot categorically say that illuminated road signs do not exist, I do not recall seeing any.

If the Dutch and other European nations do not need illuminated road signs, nor do the British. Scrap them now.

Why is this idea important?

The law that requires road signs to be illuminated with their own lamps should be repealed.

Many road signs in villages, towns and cities are illuminated with their own lamp,  which is unnecessary; it is unnecessary because road signs are reflective in car headlights; and it is unnecessary because they are already illuminated by the main street lights.

To illuminate such signs with a third source of light – their own lamp positioned above them – is a monumental waste of money, a major waste of energy and a big contributor to the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The law requiring road signs to be independently lit should therefore be scrapped, to save taxpayers' money and to save the environment.

The disadvantages of individually lit road signs are:

1) The lighting units are costly to buy and install, wasting taxpayers' money.

2) The units are costly to maintain, wasting more money.

3) The units are costly to power, wasting money,

4) Collectively, road-sign lamps use a lot of energy and create harmful greenhouse gases. Many of the automatic light sensors or timers on these lamps are broken, meaning that even during the day they are turned on.

5) They are visual eyesores and a source of light pollution and ; even in well-lit cities and towns road-sign lamps spoil the urban environment, especially in old centres and conservation areas.

Highways and lighting engineers claim that road signs need their own illumination lamps for safety and information purposes, but they are wrong on two counts: a) they underestimate the reflective power of the signs; b) they underestimate the amount of light shed on them by ordinary street lights.

If you want proof that illuminated road signs are pointless, just go to the Netherlands. On a recent trip to Amsterdam, I did NOT see a SINGLE road sign that had its own illuminating lamp – all relied on their reflective qualities and ambient lighting provided by ordinary street lights. I have travelled to many other European countries and, although I cannot categorically say that illuminated road signs do not exist, I do not recall seeing any.

If the Dutch and other European nations do not need illuminated road signs, nor do the British. Scrap them now.

Automate the Dartford Tolls to the Congestion Charge Standard

No amount of government pledges on climate change are credible until the biggest man-made traffic jam in Europe is abolished.  Every day, thousands of cars are trapped in an impossed jam, pumping thousands of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and losing industry and commerce millions.  I am not suggesting scrapping the charge but simply implementing the London congestion charge system.  After all, I am sure every number plate is read when a car uses the booths now.

There is no excuse for not changing this.  If the goverment is serious about the environment and wants the population to do its bit, then the goverment should lead by example and implement a system to remove this MAN MADE traffic jam that is a huge embarrassment on the largest artery from Europe to the UK.  No where else in Europe can be seen such a poor example of road management. Its time government stepped up to the plate and tackled this blot on the landscape.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

No amount of government pledges on climate change are credible until the biggest man-made traffic jam in Europe is abolished.  Every day, thousands of cars are trapped in an impossed jam, pumping thousands of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and losing industry and commerce millions.  I am not suggesting scrapping the charge but simply implementing the London congestion charge system.  After all, I am sure every number plate is read when a car uses the booths now.

There is no excuse for not changing this.  If the goverment is serious about the environment and wants the population to do its bit, then the goverment should lead by example and implement a system to remove this MAN MADE traffic jam that is a huge embarrassment on the largest artery from Europe to the UK.  No where else in Europe can be seen such a poor example of road management. Its time government stepped up to the plate and tackled this blot on the landscape.

 

 

The Medway Act 2001. discriminates against medway residents.

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Presumption of innocence with vehicle offences

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

Why is this idea important?

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON MOTORWAYS

Allow traffic to flow freely on all lanes of the moterway, overtaking should be allowed on any lane, this works perfectly well in the US.  Allowing all lanes to be fully used would increase space and stop the frustration caused by slow vehicles in the middle and outside lanes.

Why is this idea important?

Allow traffic to flow freely on all lanes of the moterway, overtaking should be allowed on any lane, this works perfectly well in the US.  Allowing all lanes to be fully used would increase space and stop the frustration caused by slow vehicles in the middle and outside lanes.

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.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase