Driving licence points

As we all know you only need 12 points on your driving licence to lose it. To be given points for non excessive speeding is draconian. My idea is to remove points for speeding (but not other offences) but to increase the fines.

 

1 – People don't slow down for speed cameras unless they see them. Often people still speed as demonstrated by the fact that they still get caught by speed cameras. The threat of points doesn’t work.

2 – The reason for speed cameras is not safety but cash generation as shown by the fact that they are now being switched off on areas following recent government cuts. If speed reduction was the real incentive then physical measures would have been created eg chicanes, bumps etc.

3 – Physical barriers are cheaper to install and maintain than cameras and could be used in quieter areas and for busier roads then fines but not points should be used. The fines should be steeper than present and could rise sharply. Financial penalties are more effective in most cases. If we had a £100 fine which doubled for each subsequent fine you'd soon see speeding reduced. If the fines can't be paid then you take the car; it should be treated with the same severity as MOT and insurance infringements.

4 – Points should be retained for severe speeding offences (say 50 mph in a 30 mph zone)  and other offences (drink driving, dangerous driving, driving without insurance/MOT etc) to reflect the risk.

5 – People resent speed cameras because of the points. Adjust the approach and people will be less antagonistic.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

As we all know you only need 12 points on your driving licence to lose it. To be given points for non excessive speeding is draconian. My idea is to remove points for speeding (but not other offences) but to increase the fines.

 

1 – People don't slow down for speed cameras unless they see them. Often people still speed as demonstrated by the fact that they still get caught by speed cameras. The threat of points doesn’t work.

2 – The reason for speed cameras is not safety but cash generation as shown by the fact that they are now being switched off on areas following recent government cuts. If speed reduction was the real incentive then physical measures would have been created eg chicanes, bumps etc.

3 – Physical barriers are cheaper to install and maintain than cameras and could be used in quieter areas and for busier roads then fines but not points should be used. The fines should be steeper than present and could rise sharply. Financial penalties are more effective in most cases. If we had a £100 fine which doubled for each subsequent fine you'd soon see speeding reduced. If the fines can't be paid then you take the car; it should be treated with the same severity as MOT and insurance infringements.

4 – Points should be retained for severe speeding offences (say 50 mph in a 30 mph zone)  and other offences (drink driving, dangerous driving, driving without insurance/MOT etc) to reflect the risk.

5 – People resent speed cameras because of the points. Adjust the approach and people will be less antagonistic.

 

 

Speed Cameras should only be allowed outside schools and in residential areas

I have been asking myself if speed cameras are really about safety and not revenue then why isn't there a speed camera outside every school? In fact I don't think I have ever seen a speed camera outside a school yet these are the places where children are put at risk everyday by agressive speeding drivers. At lot of speed cameras are on roads that aren't even close to residential areas.

Why is this idea important?

I have been asking myself if speed cameras are really about safety and not revenue then why isn't there a speed camera outside every school? In fact I don't think I have ever seen a speed camera outside a school yet these are the places where children are put at risk everyday by agressive speeding drivers. At lot of speed cameras are on roads that aren't even close to residential areas.

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.

enforce the speed limit

My civil liberties are challenged daily by the huge numbers of motorists who break the law on the speed limits. My freedom of movement is challenged by this. Surely in the big society communities who are terrorised by speeding motorists should be encouraged to set up their own speed cameras. It is time the majority ( 82% ) in the latest poll who support speed limits being enforced were listened to. Why is this coalition Government supporting the law breakers by talking about the war on motorists and encouraging the removal of speed cameras?

Why is this idea important?

My civil liberties are challenged daily by the huge numbers of motorists who break the law on the speed limits. My freedom of movement is challenged by this. Surely in the big society communities who are terrorised by speeding motorists should be encouraged to set up their own speed cameras. It is time the majority ( 82% ) in the latest poll who support speed limits being enforced were listened to. Why is this coalition Government supporting the law breakers by talking about the war on motorists and encouraging the removal of speed cameras?

Speed limits through ANOB’s need to be lower.

ANOB's, Conservation areas and National Parks, need lower speed limits. Although speeding like the Stig, might be every young man's dream; surely its time to grow up and treat the enviroment with respect!

Therefore, certain pristine areas of the UK, which man or woman and their motor, haven't ruined should be treated as National Treasures and every effort should be made to preserve them, including low speed limits.

Why is this idea important?

ANOB's, Conservation areas and National Parks, need lower speed limits. Although speeding like the Stig, might be every young man's dream; surely its time to grow up and treat the enviroment with respect!

Therefore, certain pristine areas of the UK, which man or woman and their motor, haven't ruined should be treated as National Treasures and every effort should be made to preserve them, including low speed limits.

Reduce and Simplify Speed Limit

Reduce and simplify speed limits for all vehicles on all roads (possible exception of motorways). For example, all roads within a town area to have a speed limit of 20mph and all roads outside of town area to be 40mph. There would be little or no need for speed limit signs either.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce and simplify speed limits for all vehicles on all roads (possible exception of motorways). For example, all roads within a town area to have a speed limit of 20mph and all roads outside of town area to be 40mph. There would be little or no need for speed limit signs either.

speeding

speeding laws need to be reviewed to ensure Safety to those 'on' or 'in the proximity of the roads.' Common sence, however,  needs also to be used when policing these laws.

For example doing 80 on an empty M6 motorway at 0600 on a Sunday morning is not unsafe and therefore to enforce that law affectively becomes pointless. you guest it that's how i was court!

unfortunately cameras are often deployed, in such positions just to catch people out.  in this form the law is not being used for protection but for taxation.

if the police, were encouraged to police in this way it would bring them much greater respect from the general public.

Why is this idea important?

speeding laws need to be reviewed to ensure Safety to those 'on' or 'in the proximity of the roads.' Common sence, however,  needs also to be used when policing these laws.

For example doing 80 on an empty M6 motorway at 0600 on a Sunday morning is not unsafe and therefore to enforce that law affectively becomes pointless. you guest it that's how i was court!

unfortunately cameras are often deployed, in such positions just to catch people out.  in this form the law is not being used for protection but for taxation.

if the police, were encouraged to police in this way it would bring them much greater respect from the general public.

Increase motorway speed limits to 80 or 90mph

Speed limits are exactly that – limits. When learning to drive you are constantly informed about this and told to drive at a reasonable speed – either at the limit or below. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the limit of otherwise well maintained, long and straight roads, free of potholes, well sign posted but with archaic speed LIMITS of 70mph – that we call motorways. We all know that modern cars can travel at speeds probably double this but what makes modern motoring different to when I was driving as a young lad is that cars are better maintained and, for example, can easily drive at high speed without steering wheel judder; not being able to brake properly (old Mini, for example); presence of ABS almost as standard these days etc etc.

If common sense prevailed, limits should be 80 or 90 (mph) on motorways and the decision of what speed to drive left to the driver (taking into consideration road conditions, weather, number of cars on the road etc.) I appreciate that faster speeds mean more CO2 but at 3am on the M5 going south to Devon, why is it that 70mph is even a moderately acceptable limit!?!?!?!

Why is this idea important?

Speed limits are exactly that – limits. When learning to drive you are constantly informed about this and told to drive at a reasonable speed – either at the limit or below. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the limit of otherwise well maintained, long and straight roads, free of potholes, well sign posted but with archaic speed LIMITS of 70mph – that we call motorways. We all know that modern cars can travel at speeds probably double this but what makes modern motoring different to when I was driving as a young lad is that cars are better maintained and, for example, can easily drive at high speed without steering wheel judder; not being able to brake properly (old Mini, for example); presence of ABS almost as standard these days etc etc.

If common sense prevailed, limits should be 80 or 90 (mph) on motorways and the decision of what speed to drive left to the driver (taking into consideration road conditions, weather, number of cars on the road etc.) I appreciate that faster speeds mean more CO2 but at 3am on the M5 going south to Devon, why is it that 70mph is even a moderately acceptable limit!?!?!?!

Speed Limits – Restore The 85th Percentile Rule

Speed limits used to be set at the speed below which 85% of drivers would choose to drive, measured in free flowing traffic.  This is a proven scientific formula which set limits at a sensible level.  This ensured that only the reckless few were prosecuted.  The last government changed this to the 'mean speed' meaning that councils can set limits making 50% of drivers criminals.

This should be reversed.  Then all the argments about speed cameras and punishments would becoime superfluous as responsible drivers would not be criminalised.

Why is this idea important?

Speed limits used to be set at the speed below which 85% of drivers would choose to drive, measured in free flowing traffic.  This is a proven scientific formula which set limits at a sensible level.  This ensured that only the reckless few were prosecuted.  The last government changed this to the 'mean speed' meaning that councils can set limits making 50% of drivers criminals.

This should be reversed.  Then all the argments about speed cameras and punishments would becoime superfluous as responsible drivers would not be criminalised.

Remove all speed limits & instead police dangerous driving

I would like all speed limits removed, and replace them with laws created to punish people who drive dangerously, where "dangerous" is defined as what would reasonably regarded as an action likely to cause harm by a group of one's peers.

I would like the new laws to include harsh penalties (incarceration) for people who cause accidents when driving "dangerously."

Police could apply standard "rules-of-thumb" to identify "dangerous" driving, which would be commonly understood by the public.

Why is this idea important?

I would like all speed limits removed, and replace them with laws created to punish people who drive dangerously, where "dangerous" is defined as what would reasonably regarded as an action likely to cause harm by a group of one's peers.

I would like the new laws to include harsh penalties (incarceration) for people who cause accidents when driving "dangerously."

Police could apply standard "rules-of-thumb" to identify "dangerous" driving, which would be commonly understood by the public.

Remove speed limits on most roads except 20mph and less.

Basically I believe that there should be no speed limits. The flow of traffic will work its own path and the roads will naturally be a safer place.

 

I do believe that on some roads, school zones that a speed limit does need to be enforced.

Why is this idea important?

Basically I believe that there should be no speed limits. The flow of traffic will work its own path and the roads will naturally be a safer place.

 

I do believe that on some roads, school zones that a speed limit does need to be enforced.

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.

Introduce a Minimum Speed Limit on Motorways & Dual Carriageways

By introducing a minimum speed limit on Motorways and dual carriageways you will ease the congestion of the main routes during periods of heavy traffic.

Why is this idea important?

By introducing a minimum speed limit on Motorways and dual carriageways you will ease the congestion of the main routes during periods of heavy traffic.

Remove windermere 10mph limit from Windermere Navigation Byelaws 1986 ammended 1992

The sad part about the Windermere Navigation Byelaws 1986 (ammended 1992) is that they are questionable as to being in breach of UK residents human rights. People were water skiing on Windermere before the national park took over the management of the land around 1929.

The sail boats that are allowed pose a visual block on all the lakeside landscape and infringe most views when behind one on the lake.

Why not let our cumbrian (and other local) kids enjoy the fabulous sports opportunities that windermere has to offer involving the use of a powered craft over the speed of 10mph.

These same people who set these crazy laws also moan about kids in the areas hanging around with nothing to do.

our last and only hope for the removal of this economically crippling law is the new coallition government, come on chaps, try this option.

1) Crafts can only exceed the 10mph limit if towing a human interacting in a watersport.
2) Crafts can only exceed 10mph between 7am and 1030am and 1800 hrs and 2100 hrs.
3) Crafts can only exceed 10mph when in the designated areas of the lake

Please can we add the three points above to the windermere navigation byelaws?

Then the area may do some business, never seen so many hotels and guest houses for sale

Why is this idea important?

The sad part about the Windermere Navigation Byelaws 1986 (ammended 1992) is that they are questionable as to being in breach of UK residents human rights. People were water skiing on Windermere before the national park took over the management of the land around 1929.

The sail boats that are allowed pose a visual block on all the lakeside landscape and infringe most views when behind one on the lake.

Why not let our cumbrian (and other local) kids enjoy the fabulous sports opportunities that windermere has to offer involving the use of a powered craft over the speed of 10mph.

These same people who set these crazy laws also moan about kids in the areas hanging around with nothing to do.

our last and only hope for the removal of this economically crippling law is the new coallition government, come on chaps, try this option.

1) Crafts can only exceed the 10mph limit if towing a human interacting in a watersport.
2) Crafts can only exceed 10mph between 7am and 1030am and 1800 hrs and 2100 hrs.
3) Crafts can only exceed 10mph when in the designated areas of the lake

Please can we add the three points above to the windermere navigation byelaws?

Then the area may do some business, never seen so many hotels and guest houses for sale

Autobahn style rules on UK motorways

Germany has prospered over many years in business partly due to their excellent and fast inter-city road system. It's about time we stopped being so restrictive and opened up our motorways to Autobahn style speed limits. Of course we should keep tight restrictions on speed in 30, 40 & 50 and road works limits in order to protect workers, pedestrians and children, but we need to open up 60 and 70 limits to unrestricted speed in sections of road that are safe to do so and when the weather is suitable. Modern road camera systems are already capable of detecting weather conditions and temporary limits can then be applied. Modern cars are fully capable in terms speed, braking and safety features, so a 70 max speed limit is just too restrictive for the UK's internal business growth. Germany has proved time and time again that unrestricted speed limits on appropriate roads is safe and they also aid the countries economy in so many ways. 

Why is this idea important?

Germany has prospered over many years in business partly due to their excellent and fast inter-city road system. It's about time we stopped being so restrictive and opened up our motorways to Autobahn style speed limits. Of course we should keep tight restrictions on speed in 30, 40 & 50 and road works limits in order to protect workers, pedestrians and children, but we need to open up 60 and 70 limits to unrestricted speed in sections of road that are safe to do so and when the weather is suitable. Modern road camera systems are already capable of detecting weather conditions and temporary limits can then be applied. Modern cars are fully capable in terms speed, braking and safety features, so a 70 max speed limit is just too restrictive for the UK's internal business growth. Germany has proved time and time again that unrestricted speed limits on appropriate roads is safe and they also aid the countries economy in so many ways. 

Remove all speed limits on motorways

The current 70mph limit on our motorways is woefully outdated,
in the real world how many drivers actually abide by it?

I suggest a removal of the motorway speed limit, to be replaced by more charges of careless or dangerous driving.
Consider this,

Person A is driving on a motorway at 6am on clear dry Sunday morning,very few vehicles on the road.
They are travelling at 100mph.

Person B is driving on the same motorway in winter at a busy period,
weaving in and out of traffic at 70mph.

Who is more dangerous?

We need less arbitary rules and a move towards common sense allowing police to exercise their judgement.
 

Why is this idea important?

The current 70mph limit on our motorways is woefully outdated,
in the real world how many drivers actually abide by it?

I suggest a removal of the motorway speed limit, to be replaced by more charges of careless or dangerous driving.
Consider this,

Person A is driving on a motorway at 6am on clear dry Sunday morning,very few vehicles on the road.
They are travelling at 100mph.

Person B is driving on the same motorway in winter at a busy period,
weaving in and out of traffic at 70mph.

Who is more dangerous?

We need less arbitary rules and a move towards common sense allowing police to exercise their judgement.