Data Protection and DVLA

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

Why is this idea important?

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

Extended role for traffic wardens

Would it not be a valuable consideration that traffic wardens should be obliged to check vehicle tax discs. Individuals have already broken the law by not having one. More seriously, they are likely not to have any car insurance either.

Why is this idea important?

Would it not be a valuable consideration that traffic wardens should be obliged to check vehicle tax discs. Individuals have already broken the law by not having one. More seriously, they are likely not to have any car insurance either.

Grandfather rights

After being abolished by the old government its time to bring back grandfather rights on driving licences. I think its wrong where i can drive a 10 tonne bus but yet i cannot drive a 7 and a half tonne van. Even if we paid a fee to get these rights after the 2 year probation period.

Why is this idea important?

After being abolished by the old government its time to bring back grandfather rights on driving licences. I think its wrong where i can drive a 10 tonne bus but yet i cannot drive a 7 and a half tonne van. Even if we paid a fee to get these rights after the 2 year probation period.

Fuel Duty Reform

Petrol and diesel prices in this country are prohibitive and totally out of order.

Reform Fuel Duty so that if the price is variable and a fuel tax sliding scale needs to be applied.

If it is more than 35p per litre (say 40p) pre-retail then the Government tax take will be 60% share of the overall £1.

If it is more than 25p per litre (say 30p) pre-retail then the Government tax take will be 70% share of the overall £1.

If it is less than 25p per litre pre retail (say 20p) then the Government tax take will be 80% share of the overall £1.

This will keep the cost of fuel roughly about £1 per litre allowing for varying fuel and tax prices.

Why is this idea important?

Petrol and diesel prices in this country are prohibitive and totally out of order.

Reform Fuel Duty so that if the price is variable and a fuel tax sliding scale needs to be applied.

If it is more than 35p per litre (say 40p) pre-retail then the Government tax take will be 60% share of the overall £1.

If it is more than 25p per litre (say 30p) pre-retail then the Government tax take will be 70% share of the overall £1.

If it is less than 25p per litre pre retail (say 20p) then the Government tax take will be 80% share of the overall £1.

This will keep the cost of fuel roughly about £1 per litre allowing for varying fuel and tax prices.

Allow the Severn Bridge Payment by Credit Card

Im told that the Severn Bridge Act does not allow for the Toll Fee to be paid by Credit Card. This is a nonsence today and dates from a time when Credit & Debit Cards were less widely used. Allowing Cards would save costs for the operating company & save time for the motorist.  

Why is this idea important?

Im told that the Severn Bridge Act does not allow for the Toll Fee to be paid by Credit Card. This is a nonsence today and dates from a time when Credit & Debit Cards were less widely used. Allowing Cards would save costs for the operating company & save time for the motorist.  

Freedom?

In Britain the goverment are fond of using words like freedom, in reality what freedom do we really have? We are told what we can say or write, in our schools we are told what we can eat, we are virtually told what we can think. We have speed cameras spying on us we have number plate recognition cameras, we have cameras spying on parking, we have cameras spying on us in the High Street all under the guise of "For Your Safety", "For Your Protection". I am not against cameras in accident black spots or near school entrances but in moderation. I think the Goverment should rethink laws that impinge on personal opinions or preferences. Local Councils and Police should rethink their distribution of cameras and get ride of most of them that are simply just money raisers or spies.

Why is this idea important?

In Britain the goverment are fond of using words like freedom, in reality what freedom do we really have? We are told what we can say or write, in our schools we are told what we can eat, we are virtually told what we can think. We have speed cameras spying on us we have number plate recognition cameras, we have cameras spying on parking, we have cameras spying on us in the High Street all under the guise of "For Your Safety", "For Your Protection". I am not against cameras in accident black spots or near school entrances but in moderation. I think the Goverment should rethink laws that impinge on personal opinions or preferences. Local Councils and Police should rethink their distribution of cameras and get ride of most of them that are simply just money raisers or spies.

Review of Graduated Speed Restrictions required

Calculated to reduce road traffic accidents and fatalies, implementation of the current national road strategy has seen a rash of graduated speed restrictions spring up country wide. The purpose of these restrictions being to constrain vehicles to lower speeds as they approach built-up areas. This is an excellent method of governing entry to those restricted areas.

However the manner in which this idea has been implemented is ill conceived. The restriction is unnecessarily applied to traffic travelling out of those same built-up areas. At the point where they would previously have been entering a national speed limit zone, motorists are now restricted for a further distance. This encourages frustration and bad road manners in drivers, with many attempting to overtake rashly and putting other road users in danger. This of course makes them law breakers and subject to legislation. In turn, this puts greater pressure on our overworked policing & justice systems and added burden on the tax payers pocket.

This same idea has been successfully adopted elsewhere internationally with the graduation applied only to traffic entering restricted zones – not those leaving. The governement should consider lifting this needless restriction. 

Why is this idea important?

Calculated to reduce road traffic accidents and fatalies, implementation of the current national road strategy has seen a rash of graduated speed restrictions spring up country wide. The purpose of these restrictions being to constrain vehicles to lower speeds as they approach built-up areas. This is an excellent method of governing entry to those restricted areas.

However the manner in which this idea has been implemented is ill conceived. The restriction is unnecessarily applied to traffic travelling out of those same built-up areas. At the point where they would previously have been entering a national speed limit zone, motorists are now restricted for a further distance. This encourages frustration and bad road manners in drivers, with many attempting to overtake rashly and putting other road users in danger. This of course makes them law breakers and subject to legislation. In turn, this puts greater pressure on our overworked policing & justice systems and added burden on the tax payers pocket.

This same idea has been successfully adopted elsewhere internationally with the graduation applied only to traffic entering restricted zones – not those leaving. The governement should consider lifting this needless restriction. 

Amend the destination for revenue from speed cameras

Speeding fines are a form of voluntary tax – anyone who doesn't want to pay them can simply stick to the speed limit and they will not be fined.  Given that the offences take place in a local area why not allow local authorities to collect the revenue generated by this voluntary tax and invest it in their local area – either generally or perhaps with a hypothecated purpose of road repairs.

Why is this idea important?

Speeding fines are a form of voluntary tax – anyone who doesn't want to pay them can simply stick to the speed limit and they will not be fined.  Given that the offences take place in a local area why not allow local authorities to collect the revenue generated by this voluntary tax and invest it in their local area – either generally or perhaps with a hypothecated purpose of road repairs.

Removal of the 70 mph motorway limit

 

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

Why is this idea important?

 

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

Stop persecuting motorists

Stop persecuting motorists and treating them as a caash cow from which to raise even more tax revenues.

 

Some examples of this persecution are:

* Speed cameras – excessive speed only accounts for 7.3% of all accidents. Bad driving is the big contributor

* Yet another reduction in the alchol limit – drunk driving is not one of the major causes og accidents

* Remove "sleeping policemen" and "speed Cushions". They severely damgage car tyres and suspension systems. Furthermore, due to the slowing down and acceleration of vehicles the additional carbon produced from burnt fuel is detrimental to the environment. The money saved sould be spent on repairing potholes

* Reduce the varied Road Fund Licence fees to affordable levels. £400 for a family car is just too much 

Why is this idea important?

Stop persecuting motorists and treating them as a caash cow from which to raise even more tax revenues.

 

Some examples of this persecution are:

* Speed cameras – excessive speed only accounts for 7.3% of all accidents. Bad driving is the big contributor

* Yet another reduction in the alchol limit – drunk driving is not one of the major causes og accidents

* Remove "sleeping policemen" and "speed Cushions". They severely damgage car tyres and suspension systems. Furthermore, due to the slowing down and acceleration of vehicles the additional carbon produced from burnt fuel is detrimental to the environment. The money saved sould be spent on repairing potholes

* Reduce the varied Road Fund Licence fees to affordable levels. £400 for a family car is just too much 

DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING

This offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 yrs imprisonment, should be abolished.  It was introduced in the wake of a number of media stories along the lines of "Killer Motorist Walks Free" and often focused on motorists using mobile phones when driving.

The existing (then and now) law of causing death by dangerous driving was perfectly adequate to deal with such cases.  An amendment to create a rebuttable presumption that using a mobile phone while driving is per se  dangerous would have been a far more appropriate way forward.

As it is, a motorist who makes a genuine mistake (and who does not make mistakes in 40 – 50 years of driving,) which causes death, is placed at risk of imprisonment.  It should be the act not the consequence which determines the level of culpability and the punishment.

A civilised society should not send people to prison for making a mistake.

 

I SHOULD SAY I HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN THIS MATTER

 

Why is this idea important?

This offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 yrs imprisonment, should be abolished.  It was introduced in the wake of a number of media stories along the lines of "Killer Motorist Walks Free" and often focused on motorists using mobile phones when driving.

The existing (then and now) law of causing death by dangerous driving was perfectly adequate to deal with such cases.  An amendment to create a rebuttable presumption that using a mobile phone while driving is per se  dangerous would have been a far more appropriate way forward.

As it is, a motorist who makes a genuine mistake (and who does not make mistakes in 40 – 50 years of driving,) which causes death, is placed at risk of imprisonment.  It should be the act not the consequence which determines the level of culpability and the punishment.

A civilised society should not send people to prison for making a mistake.

 

I SHOULD SAY I HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN THIS MATTER

 

Repeal / Review Speeding Law

Whilst no-one should condone irresponsible driving, and driving at a speed which is higher than the road conditions safely allow is clearly irresponsible, the current approach to setting speed limits, their enforcement and the resulting penalties imposed for breach is over-simplistic and over-punitive.

1) The problem with road speed limits is that they can only ever be set as a subjective guideline.  i.e. What might be a relatively safe speed on a particular road on a summer's evening in clear, dry conditions may be wholly unsuitable on a snowy winter's morning during rush hour.

2) Further, there are many examples of road speed limits being reduced arbitrarily where there have been no obvious changes to the surrounding road conditions. Why is this allowed?

3) Making breach of any speed limit a criminal offence, with the associated fines or court appearance, insurance premium impact and emotional worry involved, seems unreasonably disproportionate to what is essentially a victimless crime. (Note that speeding in itself is victimless but accidents resulting from excessive, unsafe speeds are not).

4) Current enforcement of speed limits is laughably apathetic. Given that we now have the roadside technology to validate the average speed of most journeys, we could theoretically enforce limits with zero tolerance. However, this would no doubt be rather unpopular and seen as infringement of civil liberties. Currently, whether you get caught speeding is mostly down to (bad) luck and it's a chance that most of the public seem willing to take at most times. This makes a nonsense of the "limits" that have been set.

5) The arguments that lower speeds, enforceable through lower limits, mean lower risk are facile. Everyone understands that if we all drove at two miles per hour (preferably with a man walking in front with a red flag), then there'd be fewer accidents, injuries and deaths. However, no-one seems to think that enforcing a two mile per hour limit is a great idea. Why? Because drivers accept a certain level of risk every time they take to the road – setting and enforcing an arbitrary speed limit, which is largely ignored, does little to reduce this risk level.

6) The fact is that the vast majority of the Great British public do not obey the set speed limit. Rather, they use common sense and experience to determine what is a safe speed given constantly changing road parameters. Given that the government's job is to reflect the will of the people, then why is the majority being ignored?

7) What other British law is there (and I'm sure someone can think of one?) which constantly varies depending on your geographical location and point in time? If a driver is concentrating on an oncoming tractor, and fails to notice the speed limit changing from 40mph to 30mph due to temporary roadworks, is it fair that they can subsequently be charged with breaking the law?

So, my suggestion is to change the law and convert speed limits to speed guidelines where travelling at a higher speed than the guideline is no longer a criminal offence. We should refocus current "enforcement" efforts on educating drivers to travel with a higher level of personal responsibility and treating excessive speed as an aggravating factor in any dangerous driving charge.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst no-one should condone irresponsible driving, and driving at a speed which is higher than the road conditions safely allow is clearly irresponsible, the current approach to setting speed limits, their enforcement and the resulting penalties imposed for breach is over-simplistic and over-punitive.

1) The problem with road speed limits is that they can only ever be set as a subjective guideline.  i.e. What might be a relatively safe speed on a particular road on a summer's evening in clear, dry conditions may be wholly unsuitable on a snowy winter's morning during rush hour.

2) Further, there are many examples of road speed limits being reduced arbitrarily where there have been no obvious changes to the surrounding road conditions. Why is this allowed?

3) Making breach of any speed limit a criminal offence, with the associated fines or court appearance, insurance premium impact and emotional worry involved, seems unreasonably disproportionate to what is essentially a victimless crime. (Note that speeding in itself is victimless but accidents resulting from excessive, unsafe speeds are not).

4) Current enforcement of speed limits is laughably apathetic. Given that we now have the roadside technology to validate the average speed of most journeys, we could theoretically enforce limits with zero tolerance. However, this would no doubt be rather unpopular and seen as infringement of civil liberties. Currently, whether you get caught speeding is mostly down to (bad) luck and it's a chance that most of the public seem willing to take at most times. This makes a nonsense of the "limits" that have been set.

5) The arguments that lower speeds, enforceable through lower limits, mean lower risk are facile. Everyone understands that if we all drove at two miles per hour (preferably with a man walking in front with a red flag), then there'd be fewer accidents, injuries and deaths. However, no-one seems to think that enforcing a two mile per hour limit is a great idea. Why? Because drivers accept a certain level of risk every time they take to the road – setting and enforcing an arbitrary speed limit, which is largely ignored, does little to reduce this risk level.

6) The fact is that the vast majority of the Great British public do not obey the set speed limit. Rather, they use common sense and experience to determine what is a safe speed given constantly changing road parameters. Given that the government's job is to reflect the will of the people, then why is the majority being ignored?

7) What other British law is there (and I'm sure someone can think of one?) which constantly varies depending on your geographical location and point in time? If a driver is concentrating on an oncoming tractor, and fails to notice the speed limit changing from 40mph to 30mph due to temporary roadworks, is it fair that they can subsequently be charged with breaking the law?

So, my suggestion is to change the law and convert speed limits to speed guidelines where travelling at a higher speed than the guideline is no longer a criminal offence. We should refocus current "enforcement" efforts on educating drivers to travel with a higher level of personal responsibility and treating excessive speed as an aggravating factor in any dangerous driving charge.

Freedom to oppose Traffic Regulation Orders and their proposals without resonable notice.

Traffic regulation orders are a legal instrument used by local authorities and the Highways Agency to impose restrictions on roads under their juristriction.

Unfortunately the system is abused. The legal requirements for advertising proposals are outdated and leads to frequent users of a road being ignored and in many cases ignorant NIMBYISM.

I propose that as a minimum Traffic Regulation Order proposals should be available on line and that indications of such proposals should be advertised road side readable at driving speed. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that interested parties could subscribe to an FOC email service notifiying proposals as they become available.

By law local authorities must be compelled listen to competent authorities such as the police. I would go further and suggest that existing orders should be open to review by tribunal if the original order was obtained by stealth.

Why is this idea important?

Traffic regulation orders are a legal instrument used by local authorities and the Highways Agency to impose restrictions on roads under their juristriction.

Unfortunately the system is abused. The legal requirements for advertising proposals are outdated and leads to frequent users of a road being ignored and in many cases ignorant NIMBYISM.

I propose that as a minimum Traffic Regulation Order proposals should be available on line and that indications of such proposals should be advertised road side readable at driving speed. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that interested parties could subscribe to an FOC email service notifiying proposals as they become available.

By law local authorities must be compelled listen to competent authorities such as the police. I would go further and suggest that existing orders should be open to review by tribunal if the original order was obtained by stealth.

Road Traffic Act 1991 – partial repeal

Repeal the following elements only of the above act:

Section 23: Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence

Section 40: Power to install equipment for detection of traffic offences

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the following elements only of the above act:

Section 23: Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence

Section 40: Power to install equipment for detection of traffic offences

Official or company cars

Any person who is employed in the public sector (either local or central government – or their agencies, armslength management schemes etc) and gets a car provided as part of their job, or gets funding towards a car, must have a car that is either manufactured in the UK or at least manufactured by a company that has some of it's range manufactured in the UK.

Furthermore, no vehicle funded from the public purse should exceed 1600cc unless there is a solid case for this ie: police PURSUIT vehicles (not for driving Chief Constables about the place), para-medic vehicles, MPs security etc.

Why is this idea important?

Any person who is employed in the public sector (either local or central government – or their agencies, armslength management schemes etc) and gets a car provided as part of their job, or gets funding towards a car, must have a car that is either manufactured in the UK or at least manufactured by a company that has some of it's range manufactured in the UK.

Furthermore, no vehicle funded from the public purse should exceed 1600cc unless there is a solid case for this ie: police PURSUIT vehicles (not for driving Chief Constables about the place), para-medic vehicles, MPs security etc.

drink driving laws

to remove the criminal record for people convicted of drink driving offences. drink driving should be a motoring offence and unless reapet offending or excessively over the limit should not make criminals of people who had no way of knowing they were over the limit in the first place. its the only law you can break without knowing and should therefore be treated in a different more sensitive way. i'm not talking about people who are three times over the limit and know their drunk but people who are 5-10 points say over the limit and had no idea when they got into their car they were breaking the law.

Why is this idea important?

to remove the criminal record for people convicted of drink driving offences. drink driving should be a motoring offence and unless reapet offending or excessively over the limit should not make criminals of people who had no way of knowing they were over the limit in the first place. its the only law you can break without knowing and should therefore be treated in a different more sensitive way. i'm not talking about people who are three times over the limit and know their drunk but people who are 5-10 points say over the limit and had no idea when they got into their car they were breaking the law.

Repeal or part repeal Dartford Crossing Tolls

The tailbacks on both sides of the Dartford Crossing are now almost guaranteed for long parts of the day. Indeed sometimes they are queud back miles to Jn 3 or 4 on the south side and Jn 28 or Jn 29 on the North side. Even on a weekend the queue is at least 30 minutes duration.

The fees were supposed to be abolished when the crossings were finished, but have not been. I understand that some money is needed for maintenance and I also understand that the government receive a substantial income from the crossing.

My idea is therefore to repeal the toll. If this is not practical then as soon as the tailback reaches a certain length, the barriers open automatically and traffic is allowed to flow freely until the backlog is cleared upon which time the barriers close and fees are taken again. This would allow income still to be collected, but would allow traffic to move.

 

Why is this idea important?

The tailbacks on both sides of the Dartford Crossing are now almost guaranteed for long parts of the day. Indeed sometimes they are queud back miles to Jn 3 or 4 on the south side and Jn 28 or Jn 29 on the North side. Even on a weekend the queue is at least 30 minutes duration.

The fees were supposed to be abolished when the crossings were finished, but have not been. I understand that some money is needed for maintenance and I also understand that the government receive a substantial income from the crossing.

My idea is therefore to repeal the toll. If this is not practical then as soon as the tailback reaches a certain length, the barriers open automatically and traffic is allowed to flow freely until the backlog is cleared upon which time the barriers close and fees are taken again. This would allow income still to be collected, but would allow traffic to move.

 

DVLA data: stop misuse

The data that car owners are required to give to the government, rightly, should not be sold on to car park companies, "civil enforcement" racketeers and clamping cowboys. Their access should be retricted to searches paid for, if need be, in the course of civil proceedingsd, properly restricted, not just handed out to those who want to make a profit out of the public.

Why is this idea important?

The data that car owners are required to give to the government, rightly, should not be sold on to car park companies, "civil enforcement" racketeers and clamping cowboys. Their access should be retricted to searches paid for, if need be, in the course of civil proceedingsd, properly restricted, not just handed out to those who want to make a profit out of the public.

Remove zig-zag lines from pedestrian crossings and create more parking spaces

Remove the 'no parking' zones around pedestrian crossings that are indicated by zig zag markings on the road and allow vehicles to park right up to (but not on) the crossing unless the whole road has other parking restrictions.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the 'no parking' zones around pedestrian crossings that are indicated by zig zag markings on the road and allow vehicles to park right up to (but not on) the crossing unless the whole road has other parking restrictions.

A Consistent National Parking Policy For Motorcyclists

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

Repeal the law against turning left on a red light if safe to do so

Turning left on a red traffic light is illegal even when there is no traffic and you are looking at an empty junction. Lights have been set regularly for volumes of non-existant pedestrians (four sets within a mile of me)

The ability to turn right on red (mirror image – they drive on the right) when safe to do so has been in use in North America for generations without problems. Only junctions where this is NOT allowed are marked.

Why is this idea important?

Turning left on a red traffic light is illegal even when there is no traffic and you are looking at an empty junction. Lights have been set regularly for volumes of non-existant pedestrians (four sets within a mile of me)

The ability to turn right on red (mirror image – they drive on the right) when safe to do so has been in use in North America for generations without problems. Only junctions where this is NOT allowed are marked.