Repeal the overtaking on the left motoring law

Currently is is an offence to overtake on the left. This law is illogical.

If you can be overtaken on the left then you are in the wrong position / speed on the road. The fault is yours not the overtaker.

The argument against this on road safety grounds is without merit. It has been legal in North America (mirror image) for generations without mishap.

Why is this idea important?

Currently is is an offence to overtake on the left. This law is illogical.

If you can be overtaken on the left then you are in the wrong position / speed on the road. The fault is yours not the overtaker.

The argument against this on road safety grounds is without merit. It has been legal in North America (mirror image) for generations without mishap.

Remove councils and transport for london control of local road

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Why is this idea important?

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

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

Why is this idea important?

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

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Pavement Parking

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.

Why is this idea important?

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.

Wheel clamping – make it illegal

In a civilised society, it is unbelievable that such an act of vandalism and barbarism should be allowed let alone encouraged.

The companies who do it are also often run by thugs who are laughing all the way to the bank – it allows them to practise their thuggery and make money – legally!

Why is this idea important?

In a civilised society, it is unbelievable that such an act of vandalism and barbarism should be allowed let alone encouraged.

The companies who do it are also often run by thugs who are laughing all the way to the bank – it allows them to practise their thuggery and make money – legally!

Make Traffic Laws Apply to Cyclists.

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Why is this idea important?

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Proportional Fines – Fairness

It will not have escaped the notice of the lower paid, that if they have to pay a £60 parking or speeding fine it is a significant proportion of income. If you are on an income of £12,000 per annum the £60 fine is 0.5% of annual income.

So for simplicity, let’s argue that the benchmark for a fine is 0.5% of annual income and not just a standard £60 fine regardless of income.

 

The following scale of charges would then apply to the annual incomes shown below:

Income                Fine

£12,000              £60

£20,000             £100

£50,000             £250

£75,000             £375

£100,000          £500

£150,000          £750

£250,000       £1250

£500,000       £2500

£1,000,000    £5000

I should clarify that I am not writing this because I or any of my family members have recently been fined!

I am also not advocating that the impact of a £60 fine for speeding should be lessened for the lower paid; indeed, we are told that it is important for road safety, that the fine has to have an impact to alter behaviour that is considered dangerous for all road users.

Justice must be served fairly – regardless of income and there is NO fair reason why the wealthy should pay proportionately less than those on a much lower income. My proposal for proportional fines would also hopefully have some effect in changing the arrogant disregard for parking regulations so evident in towns and cities where wealthy owners of top-of-the-range car owners blatantly inconvenience other road users, including pedestrians and totally disregard parking regulations because the fine or clamping and recovery fee they will eventually pay, is only a tiny percent of their income/savings.

Whenever a proposal is made concerning proportional fairness, there is an outcry about the cost of administering the scheme and a FAIR idea is shelved with a return to the status quo.

My method is simple – anyone fined, must submit their previous years P60 stating taxable income and the fine administered is based on this. As with any idea, my proposal is not perfect, as there will be some who have more savings in bank accounts than income; but where there is doubt – such as a Ferrari owner claiming an income of £10,000 etc – then maybe in such unusual cases there is discretion to request copies of annual bank/savings statements. The very wealthy will use their accountants for a bit of creative accountancy, but that will always be the case.

As the Inland Revenue is a Government department, the P60 information from the department could be sent to the office dealing with the fine bypassing the need for the person being fined to submit the P60 in the post, reducing cost and an unnecessary paper trail. It merely requires emails between the Inland Revenue and the department currently administering the fine that then send out the notice of amount fined.

Any politician who says this unworkable should therefore immediately abolish the financial element – the £60 fine and administer a points on licence system as it is so obviously unfair and aimed at the lower paid. By abolishing the financial penalty the lower paid are on an equal footing with the wealthy.

Why is this idea important?

It will not have escaped the notice of the lower paid, that if they have to pay a £60 parking or speeding fine it is a significant proportion of income. If you are on an income of £12,000 per annum the £60 fine is 0.5% of annual income.

So for simplicity, let’s argue that the benchmark for a fine is 0.5% of annual income and not just a standard £60 fine regardless of income.

 

The following scale of charges would then apply to the annual incomes shown below:

Income                Fine

£12,000              £60

£20,000             £100

£50,000             £250

£75,000             £375

£100,000          £500

£150,000          £750

£250,000       £1250

£500,000       £2500

£1,000,000    £5000

I should clarify that I am not writing this because I or any of my family members have recently been fined!

I am also not advocating that the impact of a £60 fine for speeding should be lessened for the lower paid; indeed, we are told that it is important for road safety, that the fine has to have an impact to alter behaviour that is considered dangerous for all road users.

Justice must be served fairly – regardless of income and there is NO fair reason why the wealthy should pay proportionately less than those on a much lower income. My proposal for proportional fines would also hopefully have some effect in changing the arrogant disregard for parking regulations so evident in towns and cities where wealthy owners of top-of-the-range car owners blatantly inconvenience other road users, including pedestrians and totally disregard parking regulations because the fine or clamping and recovery fee they will eventually pay, is only a tiny percent of their income/savings.

Whenever a proposal is made concerning proportional fairness, there is an outcry about the cost of administering the scheme and a FAIR idea is shelved with a return to the status quo.

My method is simple – anyone fined, must submit their previous years P60 stating taxable income and the fine administered is based on this. As with any idea, my proposal is not perfect, as there will be some who have more savings in bank accounts than income; but where there is doubt – such as a Ferrari owner claiming an income of £10,000 etc – then maybe in such unusual cases there is discretion to request copies of annual bank/savings statements. The very wealthy will use their accountants for a bit of creative accountancy, but that will always be the case.

As the Inland Revenue is a Government department, the P60 information from the department could be sent to the office dealing with the fine bypassing the need for the person being fined to submit the P60 in the post, reducing cost and an unnecessary paper trail. It merely requires emails between the Inland Revenue and the department currently administering the fine that then send out the notice of amount fined.

Any politician who says this unworkable should therefore immediately abolish the financial element – the £60 fine and administer a points on licence system as it is so obviously unfair and aimed at the lower paid. By abolishing the financial penalty the lower paid are on an equal footing with the wealthy.

Make Motoring fines proportional to Income

It will not have escaped the notice of the lower paid, that if they have to pay a £60 parking or speeding fine it is a significant proportion of income. If you are on an income of £12,000 per annum the £60 fine is equivilant to 0.5% of your annual income.
So for simplicity, let’s argue that the benchmark for a fine is 0.5% of annual income and not just a standard £60 fine regardless of income.

The following scale of charges would then apply to the annual incomes shown below:

Income Fine
£12,000 £60
£20,000 £100
£50,000 £250
£75,000 £375
£100,000 £500
£150,000 £750
£250,000 £1250
£500,000 £2500
£1,000,000 £5000

I am not advocating that the impact of a £60 fine for speeding should be lessened for the lower paid; indeed, it is important for road safety that the fine has to have an impact to alter behaviour that is considered dangerous for ALL road users.

Justice must however be served fairly – regardless of income and there is NO FAIR REASON why the wealthy should pay proportionately less than those on a much lower income. My proposal for proportional fines would also hopefully have some effect in changing the arrogant disregard for parking regulations so evident in towns and cities. Often, wealthy owners of top-of-the-range car owners blatantly inconvenience other road users, including pedestrians (the blind, wheelchair bound, mothers with prams – by parking up on pavements) and totally disregard parking regulations because the fine or clamping and recovery fee they will eventually pay, is only a tiny percent of their income/savings or less than a days interest on their savings.

Whenever a proposal is made concerning proportional fairness, there is an outcry about the cost of administering the scheme and a fair idea is shelved with a return to the status quo.

My method is simple – anyone fined, must submit their previous years P60 stating taxable income and the fine administered is based on this. As with any idea, my proposal is not perfect, as there will be some who have more savings in bank accounts than income; but where there is doubt – such as a Ferrari owner claiming an income of £10,000 etc – then maybe in such unusual cases there is discretion to request copies of annual bank/savings statements. The very wealthy will use their accountants for a bit of creative accountancy, but that will always be the case, it is not a reason to be fobbed off.

As the Inland Revenue is a Government department, the P60 information from the department could be sent to the office dealing with the fine, bypassing the need for the person being fined to submit the P60 in the post, reducing cost and an unnecessary paper trail. It merely requires emails between the Inland Revenue and the department currently administering the fine that then send out the notice of amount fined.

Any politician who claims that this is unworkable should IN FAIRNESS immediately abolish the £60 fine – the financial element – and purely have a points on licence system. Then the lower paid are on an equal footing with the wealthy.

Why is this idea important?

It will not have escaped the notice of the lower paid, that if they have to pay a £60 parking or speeding fine it is a significant proportion of income. If you are on an income of £12,000 per annum the £60 fine is equivilant to 0.5% of your annual income.
So for simplicity, let’s argue that the benchmark for a fine is 0.5% of annual income and not just a standard £60 fine regardless of income.

The following scale of charges would then apply to the annual incomes shown below:

Income Fine
£12,000 £60
£20,000 £100
£50,000 £250
£75,000 £375
£100,000 £500
£150,000 £750
£250,000 £1250
£500,000 £2500
£1,000,000 £5000

I am not advocating that the impact of a £60 fine for speeding should be lessened for the lower paid; indeed, it is important for road safety that the fine has to have an impact to alter behaviour that is considered dangerous for ALL road users.

Justice must however be served fairly – regardless of income and there is NO FAIR REASON why the wealthy should pay proportionately less than those on a much lower income. My proposal for proportional fines would also hopefully have some effect in changing the arrogant disregard for parking regulations so evident in towns and cities. Often, wealthy owners of top-of-the-range car owners blatantly inconvenience other road users, including pedestrians (the blind, wheelchair bound, mothers with prams – by parking up on pavements) and totally disregard parking regulations because the fine or clamping and recovery fee they will eventually pay, is only a tiny percent of their income/savings or less than a days interest on their savings.

Whenever a proposal is made concerning proportional fairness, there is an outcry about the cost of administering the scheme and a fair idea is shelved with a return to the status quo.

My method is simple – anyone fined, must submit their previous years P60 stating taxable income and the fine administered is based on this. As with any idea, my proposal is not perfect, as there will be some who have more savings in bank accounts than income; but where there is doubt – such as a Ferrari owner claiming an income of £10,000 etc – then maybe in such unusual cases there is discretion to request copies of annual bank/savings statements. The very wealthy will use their accountants for a bit of creative accountancy, but that will always be the case, it is not a reason to be fobbed off.

As the Inland Revenue is a Government department, the P60 information from the department could be sent to the office dealing with the fine, bypassing the need for the person being fined to submit the P60 in the post, reducing cost and an unnecessary paper trail. It merely requires emails between the Inland Revenue and the department currently administering the fine that then send out the notice of amount fined.

Any politician who claims that this is unworkable should IN FAIRNESS immediately abolish the £60 fine – the financial element – and purely have a points on licence system. Then the lower paid are on an equal footing with the wealthy.

STOP PENALISING 4 X 4 DRIVERS WHO LIVE IN RURAL LOCATIONS

Stop the exorbitant taxing on 4 x 4 vehicles for those who live in rural locations and could genuinely not survive without them. 

Every winter people are stranded due to extreme weather conditions such as snow and flooding, and without the use of a 4 x 4 vehicle they would not be able to leave their homes to buy food, fuel etc and even receive medical attention or get to a hospital in an emergency.

If people cannot leave their homes then the same rule applies that others cannot reach them to deliver fuel, food, mail, medical attention etc and people are left competely isolated.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the exorbitant taxing on 4 x 4 vehicles for those who live in rural locations and could genuinely not survive without them. 

Every winter people are stranded due to extreme weather conditions such as snow and flooding, and without the use of a 4 x 4 vehicle they would not be able to leave their homes to buy food, fuel etc and even receive medical attention or get to a hospital in an emergency.

If people cannot leave their homes then the same rule applies that others cannot reach them to deliver fuel, food, mail, medical attention etc and people are left competely isolated.

Road Tax and MOT

I think that Road Tax Prices should be met at the Petrol Pump,so the more you use the road the more you pay.Those not travelling thousands of miles a year would not be hit so hard.The idea of combining TAX and MOT as one issue is great as this would effectively guarantee that a car is legal / safe to be on the road.If it is not then on the spot heavy fines and car removal.Printed Plastic / vinyl security marked discs would also stop fraud.

Why is this idea important?

I think that Road Tax Prices should be met at the Petrol Pump,so the more you use the road the more you pay.Those not travelling thousands of miles a year would not be hit so hard.The idea of combining TAX and MOT as one issue is great as this would effectively guarantee that a car is legal / safe to be on the road.If it is not then on the spot heavy fines and car removal.Printed Plastic / vinyl security marked discs would also stop fraud.

Replace default 60mph limit by 50mph

In Derbyshire almost all major roads now have 50mph limits. So each road has 50mph repeater signs along its length. Why not make the default speed limit 50mph (currently 60mph) but allow and sign 60 or even 70mph on suiatble roads.

Why is this idea important?

In Derbyshire almost all major roads now have 50mph limits. So each road has 50mph repeater signs along its length. Why not make the default speed limit 50mph (currently 60mph) but allow and sign 60 or even 70mph on suiatble roads.

Legalize Segways, Go-Peds and other personal electric transporters

Please update outdated and archaic statutes to permit new electric vehicles to be ridden on the road like electric bicycles.

Personal transporters and electric scooters, e.g. the Segway Personal Transporter or the Go-Ped, are considered motorized vehicles by the Department for Transport and subject to road traffic laws. Oddly enough, electric bicycles, which are also powered, are waived from these requirements and are legal to ride in the United Kingdom without any encumbrances.

There are four laws that need to be updated to permit these vehicles to be used.

Highway Act of 1835
Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) and
Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Highway Act of 1835 bans these vehicles from being operated on pavement or road in England Wales (Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835). Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 invalid carriages. Scooters are not classed as invalid carriages and so cannot be used on pavements.

Under the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, the Department of Transpor considers these electric scooters to be motor vehicles even though they travel at less than 18mph. These vehicles need to obtain registration and comply with basic safety standards. Most two-wheeled vehicles that travel faster than 4mph have to comply with the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA), which came into operation on 17 June 1999. The European Union does not understand how to classify these new personal electric vehicles. Member countries can pass their own specific legislation to handle them but the United Kingdom has refused to do so. The European Commission have indicated to the DfT that:

“No EC whole vehicle type- approval has been sought as the Segways is not primarily intended to travel on the road. If this manufacturer (or manufacturer of a similarly propelled vehicle), should eventually decide to seek EC type approval for such a vehicle intended for road travel, [the Commission] consider that it would need to be on the basis of Directive 2002/24/EC on the type approval of two or three wheel vehicles.”

“Member States have the right to lay down the requirements which they consider are necessary to ensure the protection of road users (i.e. may fix the conditions for allowing non EC type-approved vehicles on its roads).”

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) also needs to be updated. This states that every mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road should be registered and licensed. Electric scooters are mechanically propelled so they require registration and a vehicle registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. This legislation also enforces certain construction and lighting requirements that should not be relevant to electric bicycle substitutes.

Because electric scooters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, any user of such a vehicle on a public road is likely at the very least to be committing the offences of using the vehicle without insurance and using the vehicle without an excise licence.

Finally, drivers of electric scooters are in breach of section 87 and section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such drivers require a driving licence and third party insurance. Because these vehicles cannot be licensed for use on a road, they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. Therefore, any person using an electric scooter on a road, even with the best of intentions, will be violating their driving licence.

Why is this idea important?

Please update outdated and archaic statutes to permit new electric vehicles to be ridden on the road like electric bicycles.

Personal transporters and electric scooters, e.g. the Segway Personal Transporter or the Go-Ped, are considered motorized vehicles by the Department for Transport and subject to road traffic laws. Oddly enough, electric bicycles, which are also powered, are waived from these requirements and are legal to ride in the United Kingdom without any encumbrances.

There are four laws that need to be updated to permit these vehicles to be used.

Highway Act of 1835
Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) and
Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Highway Act of 1835 bans these vehicles from being operated on pavement or road in England Wales (Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835). Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 invalid carriages. Scooters are not classed as invalid carriages and so cannot be used on pavements.

Under the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, the Department of Transpor considers these electric scooters to be motor vehicles even though they travel at less than 18mph. These vehicles need to obtain registration and comply with basic safety standards. Most two-wheeled vehicles that travel faster than 4mph have to comply with the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA), which came into operation on 17 June 1999. The European Union does not understand how to classify these new personal electric vehicles. Member countries can pass their own specific legislation to handle them but the United Kingdom has refused to do so. The European Commission have indicated to the DfT that:

“No EC whole vehicle type- approval has been sought as the Segways is not primarily intended to travel on the road. If this manufacturer (or manufacturer of a similarly propelled vehicle), should eventually decide to seek EC type approval for such a vehicle intended for road travel, [the Commission] consider that it would need to be on the basis of Directive 2002/24/EC on the type approval of two or three wheel vehicles.”

“Member States have the right to lay down the requirements which they consider are necessary to ensure the protection of road users (i.e. may fix the conditions for allowing non EC type-approved vehicles on its roads).”

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) also needs to be updated. This states that every mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road should be registered and licensed. Electric scooters are mechanically propelled so they require registration and a vehicle registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. This legislation also enforces certain construction and lighting requirements that should not be relevant to electric bicycle substitutes.

Because electric scooters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, any user of such a vehicle on a public road is likely at the very least to be committing the offences of using the vehicle without insurance and using the vehicle without an excise licence.

Finally, drivers of electric scooters are in breach of section 87 and section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such drivers require a driving licence and third party insurance. Because these vehicles cannot be licensed for use on a road, they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. Therefore, any person using an electric scooter on a road, even with the best of intentions, will be violating their driving licence.

Shame bad drivers. Reward good ones

The traffic monitoring vehicles could also watch and film incidents of bad driving and post them on the internet. At the same time note incidents of good driving and send the driver points which could be used to reduce car insurance premiums.

Things which are not actual offenses but cause offence, such as not indicating BEFORE turning or stopping, changing lanes at a yellow box junction to 'steal' the space that has just become free for the driver next to them (leaving the latter stranded in the middle of the box), blocking up a junction without a box just to get through the lights, refusing to let drivers merge from a side road or a blocked lane…….. and on and on.

Good drivers would be those who allow another to pull out or change lane, give way to pedestrians (not to the point of causing those behind to slam on the brakes), leave space in a queue for people to turn into a side road etc.

Why is this idea important?

The traffic monitoring vehicles could also watch and film incidents of bad driving and post them on the internet. At the same time note incidents of good driving and send the driver points which could be used to reduce car insurance premiums.

Things which are not actual offenses but cause offence, such as not indicating BEFORE turning or stopping, changing lanes at a yellow box junction to 'steal' the space that has just become free for the driver next to them (leaving the latter stranded in the middle of the box), blocking up a junction without a box just to get through the lights, refusing to let drivers merge from a side road or a blocked lane…….. and on and on.

Good drivers would be those who allow another to pull out or change lane, give way to pedestrians (not to the point of causing those behind to slam on the brakes), leave space in a queue for people to turn into a side road etc.

Vignette for Foreign drivers on our Roads.

Having spent time in Switzerland this year, and duly paying the fee for our Vignette to travel on their roads, it occured to me that they have got it right, and us so very, very wrong.

  Here we are, desperately trying to dig our way out of debt, and yet  we are missing out on this potential revenue provider for the country.

  There are dozens of continental vehicles pouring off ferries and the Eurotunnel everyday, onto our roads…free of charge. Why can't we charge them..as we were charged in Switzerland, for the pleasure and convenience of using our roads? If there is a good reason why not, I will be interested to hear it.

Why is this idea important?

Having spent time in Switzerland this year, and duly paying the fee for our Vignette to travel on their roads, it occured to me that they have got it right, and us so very, very wrong.

  Here we are, desperately trying to dig our way out of debt, and yet  we are missing out on this potential revenue provider for the country.

  There are dozens of continental vehicles pouring off ferries and the Eurotunnel everyday, onto our roads…free of charge. Why can't we charge them..as we were charged in Switzerland, for the pleasure and convenience of using our roads? If there is a good reason why not, I will be interested to hear it.

Canturbury Aires

Please can we have more Aires like the Canterbury Park and Ride Aires.

Motorhomers spend their money then in the City on the bus, food and shopping.

All we need is a tap and a Elsan point and it is always left so tidy.

Why is this idea important?

Please can we have more Aires like the Canterbury Park and Ride Aires.

Motorhomers spend their money then in the City on the bus, food and shopping.

All we need is a tap and a Elsan point and it is always left so tidy.

Drink Driving

Assuming the driver can prove the he /she has been responsible whilst drinking ie not driven home. The sentence assuming no fault of the driver should be a lesser sentence . Recognising the difference between being over the limit having. Slept and showered as as posed to driving straight from the pub Resturant etc.

Why is this idea important?

Assuming the driver can prove the he /she has been responsible whilst drinking ie not driven home. The sentence assuming no fault of the driver should be a lesser sentence . Recognising the difference between being over the limit having. Slept and showered as as posed to driving straight from the pub Resturant etc.

motorhome stopovers

most large cities have a racecourse near to  their city centres, why not let them have Aires parking areas for motormes to park , allowing the occupants somewhere safe and close  to local ammenities, For instance I live in Liverpool and Aintree racecourse would be ideal for visitors with a local rail station right outside course

Why is this idea important?

most large cities have a racecourse near to  their city centres, why not let them have Aires parking areas for motormes to park , allowing the occupants somewhere safe and close  to local ammenities, For instance I live in Liverpool and Aintree racecourse would be ideal for visitors with a local rail station right outside course

simple law

We have too many laws applying to the motorist.

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

We have too many laws applying to the motorist.

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

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

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

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

Switch the white-on-brown “tourism” roadsigns to metric

Currently, the familiar white-on-brown roadsigns providing directions to tourist attractions are treated as any other roadsign and their formats are strictly governed by the Traffic Signs Regualtions and General Directions act (of 2002). That's OK in itself, but this forces those signs to conform with the other rules in TSRGD which enforce the use of miles and yards onto all signs.

Now, these are signs that are predominantly intended for tourists. A large number of these tourists will be from outside the UK and won't be familiar with miles or yards (as indeed are our own children until they are about 9 or 10 years old).

Make Britain more friendly for our visitors, and change the tourist signs to metric. Don't waste money requiring the old ones to be converted (though that would be an option). Just make it a requirement that all new ones are in metric and that when old ones need replacing that the replacement shall be in metric.

Just metric, not both systems. That would clutter the signs horribly especially in Wales where the current signs have to be translated. ( Welsh for 'mile' is 'milltir' and 'yards' is 'llath'. ) The great advantage of metric in Wales is that 'km' is 'km' and doesn't need to be translated. Other bits may do, but at least the distances would only appear once, and be clearly understood by all.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the familiar white-on-brown roadsigns providing directions to tourist attractions are treated as any other roadsign and their formats are strictly governed by the Traffic Signs Regualtions and General Directions act (of 2002). That's OK in itself, but this forces those signs to conform with the other rules in TSRGD which enforce the use of miles and yards onto all signs.

Now, these are signs that are predominantly intended for tourists. A large number of these tourists will be from outside the UK and won't be familiar with miles or yards (as indeed are our own children until they are about 9 or 10 years old).

Make Britain more friendly for our visitors, and change the tourist signs to metric. Don't waste money requiring the old ones to be converted (though that would be an option). Just make it a requirement that all new ones are in metric and that when old ones need replacing that the replacement shall be in metric.

Just metric, not both systems. That would clutter the signs horribly especially in Wales where the current signs have to be translated. ( Welsh for 'mile' is 'milltir' and 'yards' is 'llath'. ) The great advantage of metric in Wales is that 'km' is 'km' and doesn't need to be translated. Other bits may do, but at least the distances would only appear once, and be clearly understood by all.