Repeal Helmet and Seat Belt Laws

The government has asked for ideas to repeal laws which infringe on our civil liberties. This is definitely an area in which our personal freedoms are being infringed upon. The government should have no right to dictate this sort of personal choice, at least for people 18 years old and above.

Why is this idea important?

The government has asked for ideas to repeal laws which infringe on our civil liberties. This is definitely an area in which our personal freedoms are being infringed upon. The government should have no right to dictate this sort of personal choice, at least for people 18 years old and above.

20MPH Speed Limit around schools when children are present

There should be a mandatory 20MPH speed limit on roads around schools a 2 mile radius, when children are present. This would be going to school in the morning and leaving in the evening. Also if a class was out of school on an organised event, then again the 20MPH limit would automatically come into force

Why is this idea important?

There should be a mandatory 20MPH speed limit on roads around schools a 2 mile radius, when children are present. This would be going to school in the morning and leaving in the evening. Also if a class was out of school on an organised event, then again the 20MPH limit would automatically come into force

EASY RIDING: Eject ‘Nanny’, For Back-Seat Driving

Such is to say, rescind legislation (1983, I believe) that makes the wearing of seat-belts mandatory (in most cases): certainly in respect of adults; possibly in respect of children.

I'm aware of only two arguments, respectively central and supporting, advanced in support of this infringement of personal freedom: (i) that it saves lives/injuries; (ii) that it saves the state (i.e. the tax-payer) money, by reducing the burden on the NHS of treating road-related accidents.  Each briefly in turn:

(i) Saving Lives/Injuries

This is probably true (overall) – I grant its intuitive plausibility.  Though it is possibly false, to wit: disputes about whether the stats ('before' versus 'after') actually support the claim; 'risk compensation' effects (i.e. greater safety encouraging greater recklessness); classes of injury made actually more likely by the wearing of constraints.  But either way, it's IRRELEVANT!  An adult person's life is surely his to dispose according to his own lights, for better or worse, advisedly or not.  Admittedly, other people, and even the state, may well possess a certain interest in the care that a person takes of himself, but can hardly be construed as posessing a right to his avoidance of carelessness.  Any possible harm, as the philosopher J.S.Mill would have insisted (On Liberty), is simply too remote from them for their desires to trump his.

(ii) Saving Money

The argument here seems to be that (presumptive) private recklessness results in unreasonable (because reasonably avoidable) public costs; which, therefore, means that such behaviour is after all not a (clear) case of that purely 'self-regarding' activity in which J.S.Mill (as above) would have deemed state-interference to be illegitimate.  Whilst not suggesting that Mill says the very last word on these matters he does at least say a first word, which advantages us with a working 'rule-of-thumb' where desires for liberty and security may pull in opposite directions.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Saving Money argument renders the scope of his 'harm principle' practically pointless (and useless).  By implication of that argument the principle is only deemed applicable in such cases as a person lives life by perhaps the precept of an Aristotelian 'Golden Mean' (i.e. moderation in all things), or some cognate continence.  But by this standard of rightness there would be any number of common activities which, because involving some element of risk or even danger (bespeaking potential public costs in NHS-treatments, or whatever), which would thereby be opened to state interference. 

Perversely, then, under this tortured interpretation Mill's harm principle, far from defending individual liberty has been transmogrified into an instrument of attack upon it.  Which, so far as I can see, is what presiding seat-belt legislation represents.     

Why is this idea important?

Such is to say, rescind legislation (1983, I believe) that makes the wearing of seat-belts mandatory (in most cases): certainly in respect of adults; possibly in respect of children.

I'm aware of only two arguments, respectively central and supporting, advanced in support of this infringement of personal freedom: (i) that it saves lives/injuries; (ii) that it saves the state (i.e. the tax-payer) money, by reducing the burden on the NHS of treating road-related accidents.  Each briefly in turn:

(i) Saving Lives/Injuries

This is probably true (overall) – I grant its intuitive plausibility.  Though it is possibly false, to wit: disputes about whether the stats ('before' versus 'after') actually support the claim; 'risk compensation' effects (i.e. greater safety encouraging greater recklessness); classes of injury made actually more likely by the wearing of constraints.  But either way, it's IRRELEVANT!  An adult person's life is surely his to dispose according to his own lights, for better or worse, advisedly or not.  Admittedly, other people, and even the state, may well possess a certain interest in the care that a person takes of himself, but can hardly be construed as posessing a right to his avoidance of carelessness.  Any possible harm, as the philosopher J.S.Mill would have insisted (On Liberty), is simply too remote from them for their desires to trump his.

(ii) Saving Money

The argument here seems to be that (presumptive) private recklessness results in unreasonable (because reasonably avoidable) public costs; which, therefore, means that such behaviour is after all not a (clear) case of that purely 'self-regarding' activity in which J.S.Mill (as above) would have deemed state-interference to be illegitimate.  Whilst not suggesting that Mill says the very last word on these matters he does at least say a first word, which advantages us with a working 'rule-of-thumb' where desires for liberty and security may pull in opposite directions.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Saving Money argument renders the scope of his 'harm principle' practically pointless (and useless).  By implication of that argument the principle is only deemed applicable in such cases as a person lives life by perhaps the precept of an Aristotelian 'Golden Mean' (i.e. moderation in all things), or some cognate continence.  But by this standard of rightness there would be any number of common activities which, because involving some element of risk or even danger (bespeaking potential public costs in NHS-treatments, or whatever), which would thereby be opened to state interference. 

Perversely, then, under this tortured interpretation Mill's harm principle, far from defending individual liberty has been transmogrified into an instrument of attack upon it.  Which, so far as I can see, is what presiding seat-belt legislation represents.     

Lower Speed Limits in centres of population

I believe that we need to dramatically lower traffic speeds in population centres during morning and evening peak hours.  I would like to see speed limits reduced by up to 50%, say to 15 mph around schools and shops when the bulk of pedestrians and cyclists are making their way to school or work.  These limits should apply between set hours of 07.00 – 09.00 and 15.30 – 17.30 across the country.   

Why is this idea important?

I believe that we need to dramatically lower traffic speeds in population centres during morning and evening peak hours.  I would like to see speed limits reduced by up to 50%, say to 15 mph around schools and shops when the bulk of pedestrians and cyclists are making their way to school or work.  These limits should apply between set hours of 07.00 – 09.00 and 15.30 – 17.30 across the country.   

Remove self incrimination for speeding offences.

In the UK the owner of a vehicle is expected to indentify the driver when their vehicle is caught by a speed camera. Failure to do so affords the same penalty as though the speeding offence was committed by the owner.

Although it's a natural assumption that an owner of a vehicle will know who drove it this is not always the case and it is the exceptions and how the owner of the vehicle is treated that demonstrate the need to remove this requirement.

In many instances the photos provided do not clearly identify the driver. The onus is then on the drivers memory. There have however been many cases where the owner is forced in to either giving up a friend or taking the rap when there is significant doubt because he is told that unless he provides an answer within a certain time he will have committed a crime anyway.

There have been a few cases where owners have beaten this but the treatment of them during the process has been dispicable. For instance the cases are dragged on and the court where the trial is to be heard is located away from where the owner lives. They are also denied legal aid meaning only the wealthy can afford to defend themselves properly. 

If a person cannot be identified from the speed camera photo then the case should be thrown out. People should not be hounded in to giving up their friends, family or in to admitting to a crime they perhaps didn't commit.

Why is this idea important?

In the UK the owner of a vehicle is expected to indentify the driver when their vehicle is caught by a speed camera. Failure to do so affords the same penalty as though the speeding offence was committed by the owner.

Although it's a natural assumption that an owner of a vehicle will know who drove it this is not always the case and it is the exceptions and how the owner of the vehicle is treated that demonstrate the need to remove this requirement.

In many instances the photos provided do not clearly identify the driver. The onus is then on the drivers memory. There have however been many cases where the owner is forced in to either giving up a friend or taking the rap when there is significant doubt because he is told that unless he provides an answer within a certain time he will have committed a crime anyway.

There have been a few cases where owners have beaten this but the treatment of them during the process has been dispicable. For instance the cases are dragged on and the court where the trial is to be heard is located away from where the owner lives. They are also denied legal aid meaning only the wealthy can afford to defend themselves properly. 

If a person cannot be identified from the speed camera photo then the case should be thrown out. People should not be hounded in to giving up their friends, family or in to admitting to a crime they perhaps didn't commit.

Removing the need for MOT’s on Motorcycles

In accordance with the EEC review on the above, and in the light of experience gained with MOT testing on motorcycles, it has been found that virtually all bikes are maintained either meticulously or well above a standard to comply with MOT's.

 Those found on the road that have road faults also have so many things like no driver licence, no insurance and the like which in any case would not be picked up by any MOT>

  Road accidents that are due to vehicular maintenance are virtually nill with the exception of mopeds and the like, again many of these are not legal thru other reasons.

  Therefore, abolish the MOT requirement on all vehicles that need a motorcycle licence to drive them.

Why is this idea important?

In accordance with the EEC review on the above, and in the light of experience gained with MOT testing on motorcycles, it has been found that virtually all bikes are maintained either meticulously or well above a standard to comply with MOT's.

 Those found on the road that have road faults also have so many things like no driver licence, no insurance and the like which in any case would not be picked up by any MOT>

  Road accidents that are due to vehicular maintenance are virtually nill with the exception of mopeds and the like, again many of these are not legal thru other reasons.

  Therefore, abolish the MOT requirement on all vehicles that need a motorcycle licence to drive them.

De criminalise not wearing seat belts

IIt shouldnt be a crime to not wear a seat belt.

Adults drive cars and know how important it is to wear a seat belt therefore they should be able to decide for themselves not make them criminals if they dont.

Insurance Companies can adjust their policies to take into account whether a belt is worn or not the police have better things to do.

Why is this idea important?

IIt shouldnt be a crime to not wear a seat belt.

Adults drive cars and know how important it is to wear a seat belt therefore they should be able to decide for themselves not make them criminals if they dont.

Insurance Companies can adjust their policies to take into account whether a belt is worn or not the police have better things to do.

Repeal the law on wearing dark visors

Repeal the law against wearing dark visors in sunny and sometimes blinding conditions when riding your motorcycle in the summer.

We are quite capable of deciding for ourselves when and when not to wear such equipment for our own and others safety. Dark visors can be lifted manually within seconds whilst riding into a shadowed area and most of us carry clear visors as spare to change should conditions alter.

To make it illegal even for passengers to wear as well makes it even more of an idiot law, especially when there is no law stopping anyone wearing sunglasses inside their helmet whilst riding.

It's just another nanny state law which should never have made it out of the starting blocks in the first place.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the law against wearing dark visors in sunny and sometimes blinding conditions when riding your motorcycle in the summer.

We are quite capable of deciding for ourselves when and when not to wear such equipment for our own and others safety. Dark visors can be lifted manually within seconds whilst riding into a shadowed area and most of us carry clear visors as spare to change should conditions alter.

To make it illegal even for passengers to wear as well makes it even more of an idiot law, especially when there is no law stopping anyone wearing sunglasses inside their helmet whilst riding.

It's just another nanny state law which should never have made it out of the starting blocks in the first place.

End the School Run Traffic Chaos Nightmare

End the “School Run” Nightmare of local traffic chaos around schools and nearby residential roads caused by inconsiderate parents taking their children to school by car.

Parking wardens should patrol local streets during such times and parents leaving unattended cars inconsiderately should face hefty fines, in extreme cases removal of the vehicle if causing an obstruction 

Better still Implement an "Orange" school busses system similar to the USA with frequent stopping places to enable children to join at which point they pay a fare.

For children who live closer encourage walking and cycling to school.

Why is this idea important?

End the “School Run” Nightmare of local traffic chaos around schools and nearby residential roads caused by inconsiderate parents taking their children to school by car.

Parking wardens should patrol local streets during such times and parents leaving unattended cars inconsiderately should face hefty fines, in extreme cases removal of the vehicle if causing an obstruction 

Better still Implement an "Orange" school busses system similar to the USA with frequent stopping places to enable children to join at which point they pay a fare.

For children who live closer encourage walking and cycling to school.

Fine wreckless cyclists who run red lights etc

How many cyclists have you seen run a red light? 80/90 per cent of the ones I have seen do it. If that was a motorist caught by police they would eb in serious trouble.

Cyclist should be fined for this as it is a dangerous practice. It may cut down on accidents and also create some revenue for the government. How about £100 a shot!

Why is this idea important?

How many cyclists have you seen run a red light? 80/90 per cent of the ones I have seen do it. If that was a motorist caught by police they would eb in serious trouble.

Cyclist should be fined for this as it is a dangerous practice. It may cut down on accidents and also create some revenue for the government. How about £100 a shot!

Make the speeding laws work FOR road safety

There undoubtedly are many laws on the statute book that need drastic revision or outright repeal and it is to the credit of the present government that these are being examined.

Of course there are also laws that are perfectly reasonable if they are used properly for the purpose for which they were intended but are being abused for purposes other than that intended. The anti-terrorism legislation is a well recognised example of how a law intended for one purpose has been corrupted for use for other objectives. Another example that touches a very large number of people in the UK is the way in which road traffic laws, particularly speed regulation, are being abused. One might forgive an element of abuse if the objective of improving road safety was being achieved but unfortunately there is a plethora of data to demonstrate that the very opposite is the actual situation. The law is being routinely abused and corrupted by those who should be upholding it and to add insult to injury it is being abused to the detriment of road safety.

Motoring cases are, for the most part, subject to summary trial. Of course the whole basis of the summary trial is contrary to one of the basic precepts of our legal system which demands that the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. But, important as it is, I shall leaving that aside for now.

One of the basic safeguards to try to ensure the veracity and integrity of evidence is that no-one can be convicted of a criminal offence unless there is at least two independent positive corroborating evidences demonstrating guilt. The situation with speeding offences is that a single officer or civilian camera operator provides all the evidence. What should happen is that the officer/operator must first form an opinion that a specific vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. This is called Prior Opinion. Only then may he turn to the “camera” to provide verification of the speed. Leaving aside the proven unreliability of the information produced from such devices, while the requirement for 2 evidences may just about be satisfied in no way can it possibly satisfy the requirement for independence. In reality what happens is that the officer/operator uses his “camera” to go on a fishing trip to try to detect a vehicle exceeding the limit and when he does succeed he retrofits his prior opinion that the vehicle was speeding. The officer/operator will swear black and blue that he formed his opinion prior to using the camera but examination of the video, if there is one, invariably demonstrates that, unless the officer/operator has the speed and agility of Superman it is inconceivable that he could perform both tasks consecutively in the correct sequence.

Even when the officer/operator is demonstrated to have been lying to the court his evidence is accepted to convict the often innocent and almost always perfectly safe driver. It is a stain on our hitherto excellent road safety record and a very black stain on the reputation of British justice. I am also convinced that these injustices are adversely affecting the relationship between the law abiding general public and the police. I believe that perfectly safe drivers who are “fleeced” by this process well, and I believe often do, resolve never again to give the co-operation to the police upon which they depend for their effective operation.

Again, if road safety were improving and only dangerous drivers were being targeted as a result of this activity albeit illegal a tacit “blind eye” might be turned to what is going on but that is not the case. Thousands, perhaps millions of perfectly safe drivers have their lives adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by a process that has also massively damaged road safety. It has no redeeming qualities.

There are those who say “if you break the law, i.e. speed, you must suffer the consequences”. That is the absolute view but the pragmatists know perfectly well that laws are not and cannot be written to encompass all situations so common sense musty be used in the application of the law. An excellent case demonstrating this is the law against assisting suicide versus those who help someone to avail themselves of Dignitas. Clearly they break British law but common sense demands they will not be prosecuted. The law is not and can never be absolute.

You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise. What I would like to see is properly resourced traffic patrols back on our roads with their clearly stated mission to improve road safety. Specifically they must not be tasked by any means to improve clear-up statistics or to be quasi revenue agents. For the most part, education and training is the answer but for the few who are reckless and dangerous they would have the traffic laws, including speeding, to take these bad and dangerous drivers off the road.

We must regain the position of being in the vanguard of countries for Road Safety and return to a position articulated by the MP who, when he introduced them to the UK, stated that safe, responsible drivers should have no fear of speed limits.

Despite the length of this document, for which I apologise, there are many more facets to this and a lot of information and data to back up what I say here.
Although I am frankly sceptical that this will be addressed, I am prepared to supply the data and information of which I speak and to work with anyone who genuinely wishes to fix this appalling situation.

Why is this idea important?

There undoubtedly are many laws on the statute book that need drastic revision or outright repeal and it is to the credit of the present government that these are being examined.

Of course there are also laws that are perfectly reasonable if they are used properly for the purpose for which they were intended but are being abused for purposes other than that intended. The anti-terrorism legislation is a well recognised example of how a law intended for one purpose has been corrupted for use for other objectives. Another example that touches a very large number of people in the UK is the way in which road traffic laws, particularly speed regulation, are being abused. One might forgive an element of abuse if the objective of improving road safety was being achieved but unfortunately there is a plethora of data to demonstrate that the very opposite is the actual situation. The law is being routinely abused and corrupted by those who should be upholding it and to add insult to injury it is being abused to the detriment of road safety.

Motoring cases are, for the most part, subject to summary trial. Of course the whole basis of the summary trial is contrary to one of the basic precepts of our legal system which demands that the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. But, important as it is, I shall leaving that aside for now.

One of the basic safeguards to try to ensure the veracity and integrity of evidence is that no-one can be convicted of a criminal offence unless there is at least two independent positive corroborating evidences demonstrating guilt. The situation with speeding offences is that a single officer or civilian camera operator provides all the evidence. What should happen is that the officer/operator must first form an opinion that a specific vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. This is called Prior Opinion. Only then may he turn to the “camera” to provide verification of the speed. Leaving aside the proven unreliability of the information produced from such devices, while the requirement for 2 evidences may just about be satisfied in no way can it possibly satisfy the requirement for independence. In reality what happens is that the officer/operator uses his “camera” to go on a fishing trip to try to detect a vehicle exceeding the limit and when he does succeed he retrofits his prior opinion that the vehicle was speeding. The officer/operator will swear black and blue that he formed his opinion prior to using the camera but examination of the video, if there is one, invariably demonstrates that, unless the officer/operator has the speed and agility of Superman it is inconceivable that he could perform both tasks consecutively in the correct sequence.

Even when the officer/operator is demonstrated to have been lying to the court his evidence is accepted to convict the often innocent and almost always perfectly safe driver. It is a stain on our hitherto excellent road safety record and a very black stain on the reputation of British justice. I am also convinced that these injustices are adversely affecting the relationship between the law abiding general public and the police. I believe that perfectly safe drivers who are “fleeced” by this process well, and I believe often do, resolve never again to give the co-operation to the police upon which they depend for their effective operation.

Again, if road safety were improving and only dangerous drivers were being targeted as a result of this activity albeit illegal a tacit “blind eye” might be turned to what is going on but that is not the case. Thousands, perhaps millions of perfectly safe drivers have their lives adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by a process that has also massively damaged road safety. It has no redeeming qualities.

There are those who say “if you break the law, i.e. speed, you must suffer the consequences”. That is the absolute view but the pragmatists know perfectly well that laws are not and cannot be written to encompass all situations so common sense musty be used in the application of the law. An excellent case demonstrating this is the law against assisting suicide versus those who help someone to avail themselves of Dignitas. Clearly they break British law but common sense demands they will not be prosecuted. The law is not and can never be absolute.

You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise. What I would like to see is properly resourced traffic patrols back on our roads with their clearly stated mission to improve road safety. Specifically they must not be tasked by any means to improve clear-up statistics or to be quasi revenue agents. For the most part, education and training is the answer but for the few who are reckless and dangerous they would have the traffic laws, including speeding, to take these bad and dangerous drivers off the road.

We must regain the position of being in the vanguard of countries for Road Safety and return to a position articulated by the MP who, when he introduced them to the UK, stated that safe, responsible drivers should have no fear of speed limits.

Despite the length of this document, for which I apologise, there are many more facets to this and a lot of information and data to back up what I say here.
Although I am frankly sceptical that this will be addressed, I am prepared to supply the data and information of which I speak and to work with anyone who genuinely wishes to fix this appalling situation.

Improve Traffic light arrangements

Place smaller traffic light repeaters at driver level on the traffic light pole. Where there is an "green arrow" type of arrangement (for a left or straight-on), then signal the arrow is lit but flashing it a few times.

Why is this idea important?

Place smaller traffic light repeaters at driver level on the traffic light pole. Where there is an "green arrow" type of arrangement (for a left or straight-on), then signal the arrow is lit but flashing it a few times.

Cycling in parks and pavements

Most cyclist like myself are very careful and considerate.  We should be allowed to cycle on the pavements in quiet areas but priority should be given to pedestrians at all times.  In Japan cyclist are allowed on the pavement.  Also all parks should allow cycling.  My husband has to cycle around Hampstead Heath and has been knocked down several times, instead he could cycle through the Park instead.  Other countries manage it why not the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Most cyclist like myself are very careful and considerate.  We should be allowed to cycle on the pavements in quiet areas but priority should be given to pedestrians at all times.  In Japan cyclist are allowed on the pavement.  Also all parks should allow cycling.  My husband has to cycle around Hampstead Heath and has been knocked down several times, instead he could cycle through the Park instead.  Other countries manage it why not the UK.

Simplify Categorisation of Driving Offences

The myriad of driving offences and the application of, sometimes inappropriate speed limits is hugely irritating to the general public.

 

Research has shown that speeding alone is not the cause of accidents – dangerous or distracted driving is. There is nothing dangerous about driving at 120 mph at 2 am on a completely empty motorway. On the other hand, it might well be dangerous to drive at 15mph on a very crowded High Street with a school emptying it's tiny charges onto it at 3.15 pm.

 

I suggest we have two categories for driving offences and no legal speed limits (speed recommendations, yes). The two categories would be "Driving without due care and attention" and "Dangerous driving". Inappropriate speed would be punishable (depending on the circumstances) as would tailgating, risky over-taking, road-rage and various other offences which are not always, currently, considered punishable. The sanctions could be wider in range than they currently are, again, depending on the severity of the offence, implemented instantly.

 

This would mean that people have the responsibility to drive sensibly and carefully vested in themselves and their own judgement. It would also entail the necessity for common-sense policing of the roads where safety is the criterion for penalising drivers.

Why is this idea important?

The myriad of driving offences and the application of, sometimes inappropriate speed limits is hugely irritating to the general public.

 

Research has shown that speeding alone is not the cause of accidents – dangerous or distracted driving is. There is nothing dangerous about driving at 120 mph at 2 am on a completely empty motorway. On the other hand, it might well be dangerous to drive at 15mph on a very crowded High Street with a school emptying it's tiny charges onto it at 3.15 pm.

 

I suggest we have two categories for driving offences and no legal speed limits (speed recommendations, yes). The two categories would be "Driving without due care and attention" and "Dangerous driving". Inappropriate speed would be punishable (depending on the circumstances) as would tailgating, risky over-taking, road-rage and various other offences which are not always, currently, considered punishable. The sanctions could be wider in range than they currently are, again, depending on the severity of the offence, implemented instantly.

 

This would mean that people have the responsibility to drive sensibly and carefully vested in themselves and their own judgement. It would also entail the necessity for common-sense policing of the roads where safety is the criterion for penalising drivers.

Use Safety Camera revenue to actually remove hazards

All revenue raised from "Safety Cameras" should be used to remove the hazard they are put in place to protect against. This can easily be audited and built up within the finance departments of local or national governments, whichever is responsible for the designated piece of road. If the hazard cannot be removed then a camera should not be used.

Permanent siting of a camera should never be allowed to be an acceptable option.

It is unacceptable that people continue to be fined for driving through a recognised hazard rather than safety being increased. The public should have an easy way to find out WHY existing cameras have been placed in particular positions and what the responsible government department intends to do about the identified danger.

The public should have easy access to all relevant information regarding Safety Cameras

Whoever is responsible for a particular "safety camera" should have a simple and effective way for members of the public to contact them so they can ask what particular safety hazard the camera is there to gaurd against. They should be able to provide a one page summary, in an easily accessible and understandable format, detailing the following on request.

1. What the hazard the safety camera is gaurding against

2. The plan to get rid of the hazard

3. The cost of ridding the area of the hazard

4. How much has currently been raised towards the eradication of the hazard and the projected time frame for raising the total amount

All proposed new Safety Cameras should be subject to public scrutiny prior to their placement

When a new camera is to be placed, the above information should be published for all to see prior to the camera being sited. This will increase public scrutiny of decision making. Again, the information should be easliy accessable and in formats which the average member of the public can understand.

Why is this idea important?

All revenue raised from "Safety Cameras" should be used to remove the hazard they are put in place to protect against. This can easily be audited and built up within the finance departments of local or national governments, whichever is responsible for the designated piece of road. If the hazard cannot be removed then a camera should not be used.

Permanent siting of a camera should never be allowed to be an acceptable option.

It is unacceptable that people continue to be fined for driving through a recognised hazard rather than safety being increased. The public should have an easy way to find out WHY existing cameras have been placed in particular positions and what the responsible government department intends to do about the identified danger.

The public should have easy access to all relevant information regarding Safety Cameras

Whoever is responsible for a particular "safety camera" should have a simple and effective way for members of the public to contact them so they can ask what particular safety hazard the camera is there to gaurd against. They should be able to provide a one page summary, in an easily accessible and understandable format, detailing the following on request.

1. What the hazard the safety camera is gaurding against

2. The plan to get rid of the hazard

3. The cost of ridding the area of the hazard

4. How much has currently been raised towards the eradication of the hazard and the projected time frame for raising the total amount

All proposed new Safety Cameras should be subject to public scrutiny prior to their placement

When a new camera is to be placed, the above information should be published for all to see prior to the camera being sited. This will increase public scrutiny of decision making. Again, the information should be easliy accessable and in formats which the average member of the public can understand.

Driving Test Change

1) All drivers over the age of 60 will have to retake their driving test.

2) All learners are not able to take their test until at least after a years worth of practice, and limit the power of the car according to their age. Do not allow them to drive vehicles with power they are unable to handle.

 

eg.

17-20 –  110bhp max

21-24 – 150bhp max

25+ – 150bhp +

Why is this idea important?

1) All drivers over the age of 60 will have to retake their driving test.

2) All learners are not able to take their test until at least after a years worth of practice, and limit the power of the car according to their age. Do not allow them to drive vehicles with power they are unable to handle.

 

eg.

17-20 –  110bhp max

21-24 – 150bhp max

25+ – 150bhp +

Control Lorry Overtaking on Motorways

A lorry may not overtake another vehicle on the Motorway unless it is travelling at under 55 MPH. An overtaking lorry must fall back if it is unable to sucessfulyy overtake within two minutes.

An alterantive would be ban all Lorry overtaking abouve 50 MPH except in new  "Overtaking Allowed" sections (on hills).

Why is this idea important?

A lorry may not overtake another vehicle on the Motorway unless it is travelling at under 55 MPH. An overtaking lorry must fall back if it is unable to sucessfulyy overtake within two minutes.

An alterantive would be ban all Lorry overtaking abouve 50 MPH except in new  "Overtaking Allowed" sections (on hills).

Mandatory Driver Refresher Training

I think the time has come to admit that the driving test is simply not enough to keep our driver and roads safe. Standards deteriorate, attititudes change, and knowledge decays.

I believe we now need to introduce Mandatory Driver Refresher Training for all licence holders, to be carried out before the reissue of the photocard licence, ie. every 10 years. Up to 5 hours with a qualified driving instructor, there would be no test.

It is evident from some of the ideas posted here already that attitudes to what makes safe driving are very different, and in some instances, those attitiudes are dangerous. The cost to society of fatalities and injuries is enormous, in terms of loss of life or recovery, to the financial cost of dealing with and clearing up after the incidents. Most drivers simply will not take responsibility for safe driving.

There has been a lot of debate regarding the standards of our newly qualified drivers and the danger they face during their first two years. The reality is that many come to a driving instructor with poor standards already engrained into them by their parents and their peers. The driving instructor has somewhere in the region of 40 hours to change that, and its simply not enough. Once they have passed, their standards slip because the poor standard they see is what they will come to accept is the norm.

So, 5 hours of refresher training to be completed by all drivers every ten years. This, I reckon, will be poorly received by most, but it is a direction we have to take. Attitudes must change.

Why is this idea important?

I think the time has come to admit that the driving test is simply not enough to keep our driver and roads safe. Standards deteriorate, attititudes change, and knowledge decays.

I believe we now need to introduce Mandatory Driver Refresher Training for all licence holders, to be carried out before the reissue of the photocard licence, ie. every 10 years. Up to 5 hours with a qualified driving instructor, there would be no test.

It is evident from some of the ideas posted here already that attitudes to what makes safe driving are very different, and in some instances, those attitiudes are dangerous. The cost to society of fatalities and injuries is enormous, in terms of loss of life or recovery, to the financial cost of dealing with and clearing up after the incidents. Most drivers simply will not take responsibility for safe driving.

There has been a lot of debate regarding the standards of our newly qualified drivers and the danger they face during their first two years. The reality is that many come to a driving instructor with poor standards already engrained into them by their parents and their peers. The driving instructor has somewhere in the region of 40 hours to change that, and its simply not enough. Once they have passed, their standards slip because the poor standard they see is what they will come to accept is the norm.

So, 5 hours of refresher training to be completed by all drivers every ten years. This, I reckon, will be poorly received by most, but it is a direction we have to take. Attitudes must change.

Fuel brands on motorway service area signs

For some reason, motorway service areas are allowed to display their brand of coffee on motorway service area advance warning signs, but not allowed to display the brand of fuel sold on the advance warning signs on motorways.

In France, they display the next 3 service areas and the brand of fuel sold at each and that reduces the chance of fuel card holders running out of fuel on the motorway.

We run coaches and the drivers have to sometimes take a coach full of passengers off the motorway just to see if the service area supports their brand of fuel card.

Why is this idea important?

For some reason, motorway service areas are allowed to display their brand of coffee on motorway service area advance warning signs, but not allowed to display the brand of fuel sold on the advance warning signs on motorways.

In France, they display the next 3 service areas and the brand of fuel sold at each and that reduces the chance of fuel card holders running out of fuel on the motorway.

We run coaches and the drivers have to sometimes take a coach full of passengers off the motorway just to see if the service area supports their brand of fuel card.

Repeal the Ban on Side-walk Cycling

As it is now it is against the law to cycle on the side-walk, even for children, punishable with up to several thousands of pounds.

The police do not enforce this law – it is pointless.

Replace it with a sensible law against riding dangerously, so that if cyclists speed on populated side-walks or pedestrian areas, the police can target those who drive dangerously and fine them.

Why is this idea important?

As it is now it is against the law to cycle on the side-walk, even for children, punishable with up to several thousands of pounds.

The police do not enforce this law – it is pointless.

Replace it with a sensible law against riding dangerously, so that if cyclists speed on populated side-walks or pedestrian areas, the police can target those who drive dangerously and fine them.