Stop local authorities from spending money on dangerous and/or wasteful ‘traffic calming’

Local authorities should not be spending ratepayers' money on wasteful 'traffic calming' schemes.

In particular, chicanes which force motorists to 'play chicken' with vehicles coming towards them should be banned.

Chicanes which force cylclists into the path of other vehicles should also be banned, as should any schemes which are at risk of causing accidents in snow, fog or other bad weather.

Road humps should be banned. These cause damage to vehicles, people's backs and the environment, the latter because they increase vehicle maintenance requirements, road repairs, and they cause rapid slowing down and speeding up which is the worst way of driving economically.

 

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities should not be spending ratepayers' money on wasteful 'traffic calming' schemes.

In particular, chicanes which force motorists to 'play chicken' with vehicles coming towards them should be banned.

Chicanes which force cylclists into the path of other vehicles should also be banned, as should any schemes which are at risk of causing accidents in snow, fog or other bad weather.

Road humps should be banned. These cause damage to vehicles, people's backs and the environment, the latter because they increase vehicle maintenance requirements, road repairs, and they cause rapid slowing down and speeding up which is the worst way of driving economically.

 

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 

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.

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