Equal rights to fine councils back

Common people should be able to fine the council for potholes, broken glass shards, over grown bushes etc. Much like the Council fines people that parks slightly carelessly, yes sometimes parking carelessly is unsafe, but so is poorly maintained roads and paths.

Why is this idea important?

Common people should be able to fine the council for potholes, broken glass shards, over grown bushes etc. Much like the Council fines people that parks slightly carelessly, yes sometimes parking carelessly is unsafe, but so is poorly maintained roads and paths.

Make the 1st hour free in all public UK car parks

Here is an idea to kick start the economy, especially in towns and cities dominated by supermarkets where smaller businesses are often loosing out becuase its free to park at the supermarket wheres its not to go and visit all the independant shops, retailers, markets and banks.  

Simply make the 1st hour parking in all public car parks free – This will open up our town centres again and boost trade. The cost of doing this could be recouped from the additional commerce this would bring.

Why is this idea important?

Here is an idea to kick start the economy, especially in towns and cities dominated by supermarkets where smaller businesses are often loosing out becuase its free to park at the supermarket wheres its not to go and visit all the independant shops, retailers, markets and banks.  

Simply make the 1st hour parking in all public car parks free – This will open up our town centres again and boost trade. The cost of doing this could be recouped from the additional commerce this would bring.

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  

Wrongly accused of a parking offence? you should be compensated

I recently spent months fighting a congestion penalty charge,i won,t go into to much detail but after lots of letters going back and forth (they don,t use email) they reluctantly  admited they may have got it wrong and cancelled the charge  needless to say  i recieved no apology.It caused me much stress thinking all this may end up in the courts,  I think they should compensate me for getting it wrong,they should pay me the charge that they asked me for in the first place, if this was common practise then councils and such like would be more careful when handing out tickets,knowing if they got it wrong it would cost them. 

                         

 

Why is this idea important?

I recently spent months fighting a congestion penalty charge,i won,t go into to much detail but after lots of letters going back and forth (they don,t use email) they reluctantly  admited they may have got it wrong and cancelled the charge  needless to say  i recieved no apology.It caused me much stress thinking all this may end up in the courts,  I think they should compensate me for getting it wrong,they should pay me the charge that they asked me for in the first place, if this was common practise then councils and such like would be more careful when handing out tickets,knowing if they got it wrong it would cost them. 

                         

 

Repeal dropped kerb regulations

Regulations governing specifications for dropped kerbs should be repealed from the Highways Act. Specifications should be either abolished in their entirety or devolved to local authorities to decide.

Why is this idea important?

Regulations governing specifications for dropped kerbs should be repealed from the Highways Act. Specifications should be either abolished in their entirety or devolved to local authorities to decide.

Parking, Estate & CPZ.

I live on an estate within LB Hammersmith & am allowed 1 estate parking permit only. Immediately adjacent to my block is a CPZ with dozens of free spaces. I am not allowed to apply for a CPZ permit because I live in the wrong block on the estate. Blocks on the far side of the estate can apply. This prevents any kind of business activity I may undertake as there is no other parking in the area. My estate is completely surrounded by another boro'.

This is a rediculous situation caused solely by local council bureacracy.

Why is this idea important?

I live on an estate within LB Hammersmith & am allowed 1 estate parking permit only. Immediately adjacent to my block is a CPZ with dozens of free spaces. I am not allowed to apply for a CPZ permit because I live in the wrong block on the estate. Blocks on the far side of the estate can apply. This prevents any kind of business activity I may undertake as there is no other parking in the area. My estate is completely surrounded by another boro'.

This is a rediculous situation caused solely by local council bureacracy.

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.

Stop Clampers Charging Extorionate Fees

Many reputable businesses hand car park management over to reputable clamping firms. They allow them to run car parks as a money making concession. Worse than that, the owner requires clampers to do that.

The reason is simple: the owner does not pay the clamper. The only money they get is when they actually clamp a car or van. They don't get paid for patrolling, putting up signs, deterring car thieves, etc. These routine activities are 100% cross-subsidised by clamping.

It does not cost £130 to fit a clamp when patrolling a car park anyway. It does not cost £130 to travel 100 yards and remove it. But it may cost that to employ someone full time and patrol at other times. This cross-subsidy is fundamentally wrong.

Make these contracts for no set fee illegal. Require the land owner to pay a Patrol Fee that covers the clampers day to day costs (or give them a cut of parking meter) and limit Release Fees to a cost that reflects reasonable time and effor for someone already in the area, with a mild punative element – say £20 total. Do not factor in the initial cost of clamping, as that can onlt happen if they are already in the area.

Why is this idea important?

Many reputable businesses hand car park management over to reputable clamping firms. They allow them to run car parks as a money making concession. Worse than that, the owner requires clampers to do that.

The reason is simple: the owner does not pay the clamper. The only money they get is when they actually clamp a car or van. They don't get paid for patrolling, putting up signs, deterring car thieves, etc. These routine activities are 100% cross-subsidised by clamping.

It does not cost £130 to fit a clamp when patrolling a car park anyway. It does not cost £130 to travel 100 yards and remove it. But it may cost that to employ someone full time and patrol at other times. This cross-subsidy is fundamentally wrong.

Make these contracts for no set fee illegal. Require the land owner to pay a Patrol Fee that covers the clampers day to day costs (or give them a cut of parking meter) and limit Release Fees to a cost that reflects reasonable time and effor for someone already in the area, with a mild punative element – say £20 total. Do not factor in the initial cost of clamping, as that can onlt happen if they are already in the area.

Abolish Workplace Parking Levy

Get rid of this tax because it punishes people for driving to work where most people are some distance from their work. It is also a stealth tax and totally undiscriminate because it will apply ro any business with about 10 or 11 car park spaces or more. Not exactly large companies is it!

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of this tax because it punishes people for driving to work where most people are some distance from their work. It is also a stealth tax and totally undiscriminate because it will apply ro any business with about 10 or 11 car park spaces or more. Not exactly large companies is it!

Reduce police red tape

The police service currently pay Local Authorities for parking tickets which have been allocated in the course of their duties. One government department paying another makes no sense. many individuals are employed in simply processing these tickets and then payments.

Why is this idea important?

The police service currently pay Local Authorities for parking tickets which have been allocated in the course of their duties. One government department paying another makes no sense. many individuals are employed in simply processing these tickets and then payments.

Large buildings need underground parking

All large buildings in inner city areas should be built with underground car parks. It should be a planning requirement that ALL new high rise, office blocks,hospitals,etc should be built with underground (or roof) car parking facilities.

Why is this idea important?

All large buildings in inner city areas should be built with underground car parks. It should be a planning requirement that ALL new high rise, office blocks,hospitals,etc should be built with underground (or roof) car parking facilities.

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.

Don’t Give Clampers People’s Addresses

When people register cars it is so the Police can trace car owners if they break the law. There is a high standard of proof and the Police have high standards.

People do not give their details so some licenced ex-nighclub bouncer can make a trumped up allegation and harass them at home. But that's exactly what happens. Any "person with a valid claim" eg a car park attendant or clamper – can write to the DVLA and get the owners details for a can registration number.

This WILL be abused. Owners of expensive cars will find themselves burgled. Attractive women will gain stalkers. Grudges will be pursued.

There is an altenative – the DVLA should never disclose an address but should instead forward communications for a modest fee, say 50p.

Remember, convicted hammer murderer Levi Bellifield was the owner of a clamping business. He could have got your home address without any questions.

Why is this idea important?

When people register cars it is so the Police can trace car owners if they break the law. There is a high standard of proof and the Police have high standards.

People do not give their details so some licenced ex-nighclub bouncer can make a trumped up allegation and harass them at home. But that's exactly what happens. Any "person with a valid claim" eg a car park attendant or clamper – can write to the DVLA and get the owners details for a can registration number.

This WILL be abused. Owners of expensive cars will find themselves burgled. Attractive women will gain stalkers. Grudges will be pursued.

There is an altenative – the DVLA should never disclose an address but should instead forward communications for a modest fee, say 50p.

Remember, convicted hammer murderer Levi Bellifield was the owner of a clamping business. He could have got your home address without any questions.

Let Owners Build Big Houses On Own Land – With Garages

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Why is this idea important?

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Motor Caravan Aires and Wild Camping in suitable locations

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

Why is this idea important?

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

Double Yellow Lines – who parks on them?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Why is this idea important?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Planning regulations in relation to parking provision

Present Labour Government planning guidance requires parking maxima in new developments,. This was intended to deter car usage but has led to more on-street parking and congestion. Planning guidance should revert to parking minima to ensure there is adequate off-street parking provision.

Why is this idea important?

Present Labour Government planning guidance requires parking maxima in new developments,. This was intended to deter car usage but has led to more on-street parking and congestion. Planning guidance should revert to parking minima to ensure there is adequate off-street parking provision.

Allow Parking on Verges/footpaths generally

In some areas you can park on grass verges or with a tyre on a kerb, but in another area this can incur a fine.

Therefore make it legal everywhere, so long as the verge or footpath is still wide enough for pedestrians to get by. The required with should be a set amount (maybe one metre).

Unless there is a no-parking sign, obviously.

In many places it is accepted because it is the only way to park safely in those locations due to the the road being busy or narrow, and people are never fined. But when you go to a new area you don't know at present.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas you can park on grass verges or with a tyre on a kerb, but in another area this can incur a fine.

Therefore make it legal everywhere, so long as the verge or footpath is still wide enough for pedestrians to get by. The required with should be a set amount (maybe one metre).

Unless there is a no-parking sign, obviously.

In many places it is accepted because it is the only way to park safely in those locations due to the the road being busy or narrow, and people are never fined. But when you go to a new area you don't know at present.

Parking tickets issued by post when cars are driven away.

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Why is this idea important?

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Remove councils’ right to tax roadside parking

This is another stealth tax.  Parking should not be allowed where it is dangerous or obstructs the flow of traffic.  Other than that it should be freely available.  There is no reason why greedy councils should be entitled to charge for parking in an ever-increasing number of roads throughout the UK.

Why is this idea important?

This is another stealth tax.  Parking should not be allowed where it is dangerous or obstructs the flow of traffic.  Other than that it should be freely available.  There is no reason why greedy councils should be entitled to charge for parking in an ever-increasing number of roads throughout the UK.

Make life easier for motor vechcles AND save money

Get rid of:

  • Speed bumps – high cost, but most drivers pass over them without problem – and they can cause noise and pollution;
  • Raised junctions / speed cushions – make no practical difference to anyone, road user or pedestriains, but must cost a fortune ( see this link for what these things are: http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/parking_rubbish_and_streets/general_street_information/road_and_traffic_safety/traffic_calming_measures.aspx )
  • The sea of traffic signs and street furniture;
  • Parking regulations, where parking wouldn't disturb anyone;
  • MOTs every year – two yearly works fine in other European countries;
  • Car tax discs, get the money from petrol tax, on a tax neutral basis- save on the administration;
  • Traffic lights at minor junctions – use white paint for a mini roundabout – cheaper and traffic flows more efficiently. How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?
  • Red traffic lights outside of the rush hour, on less busy roads – have them flash amber, signalling proceed with caution. Again works well elsewhere in the world, why not here? How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of:

  • Speed bumps – high cost, but most drivers pass over them without problem – and they can cause noise and pollution;
  • Raised junctions / speed cushions – make no practical difference to anyone, road user or pedestriains, but must cost a fortune ( see this link for what these things are: http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/parking_rubbish_and_streets/general_street_information/road_and_traffic_safety/traffic_calming_measures.aspx )
  • The sea of traffic signs and street furniture;
  • Parking regulations, where parking wouldn't disturb anyone;
  • MOTs every year – two yearly works fine in other European countries;
  • Car tax discs, get the money from petrol tax, on a tax neutral basis- save on the administration;
  • Traffic lights at minor junctions – use white paint for a mini roundabout – cheaper and traffic flows more efficiently. How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?
  • Red traffic lights outside of the rush hour, on less busy roads – have them flash amber, signalling proceed with caution. Again works well elsewhere in the world, why not here? How many times have we all sat at red, with no other traffic to be seen?

Repeal of the residents parking tax

I would retore the right of residents in urban areas to park at least one vehicle in front of their home.

Since this pernicious tax was introduced by john prescott local authorities have been able to tax local residents for parking in front of their own homes this money is then hypothocated to subsidize non residents park and ride schemes for people who live in the country side or leafy suburbs and who do not pay any such tax. Repeal it now.

Why is this idea important?

I would retore the right of residents in urban areas to park at least one vehicle in front of their home.

Since this pernicious tax was introduced by john prescott local authorities have been able to tax local residents for parking in front of their own homes this money is then hypothocated to subsidize non residents park and ride schemes for people who live in the country side or leafy suburbs and who do not pay any such tax. Repeal it now.