Remove Kerbside Railings in Cities

Kerbside railings are an impediment to the free movement of pedestrians in Cities.

You want to cross to the shop or bus stop directly on the other side. But you are blocked by railings. So you must walk a hundred metres to the traffic lights where the state allows you to cross. By this time, you are in a thick crowd also wanting to cross, that you might have avoided if not for the railings. There is another thick crowd on the other side. The island in the middle of the road is a long narrow cage with narrow doorways and either end. One crowd meets the other on the island, people squeezing though each other, to get to through to opposite end of the island from where they stepped onto it, to exit back into the road.

Once on the other side of the road you begin your walk of a hundred metres back in the opposite direction to the one in which you set out, to get to the shop or bus stop that was directly opposite you when you started.

This is madness. In continental/European cities these things are scarce. They are seldom used, but where they are, they are short.

British cities, such as London, should be practically devoid of them.

Why is this idea important?

Kerbside railings are an impediment to the free movement of pedestrians in Cities.

You want to cross to the shop or bus stop directly on the other side. But you are blocked by railings. So you must walk a hundred metres to the traffic lights where the state allows you to cross. By this time, you are in a thick crowd also wanting to cross, that you might have avoided if not for the railings. There is another thick crowd on the other side. The island in the middle of the road is a long narrow cage with narrow doorways and either end. One crowd meets the other on the island, people squeezing though each other, to get to through to opposite end of the island from where they stepped onto it, to exit back into the road.

Once on the other side of the road you begin your walk of a hundred metres back in the opposite direction to the one in which you set out, to get to the shop or bus stop that was directly opposite you when you started.

This is madness. In continental/European cities these things are scarce. They are seldom used, but where they are, they are short.

British cities, such as London, should be practically devoid of them.

Reduce the requirements for micro-vehicles

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

Why is this idea important?

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

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?

Remove reversing alarms from vehicles

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Why is this idea important?

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Use of bicycles on pavements

The legislation that banns the use of pedal cycles on footpaths and pavements is in need to be repealed. The argument that cycles cause a danger to footpath users is acknowledged but more serious injury can be caused to cyclists on roads in dangerous areas that are heavily trafficked. This is a 'nanny state' rule and should be binned.

Please support this suggestion

Why is this idea important?

The legislation that banns the use of pedal cycles on footpaths and pavements is in need to be repealed. The argument that cycles cause a danger to footpath users is acknowledged but more serious injury can be caused to cyclists on roads in dangerous areas that are heavily trafficked. This is a 'nanny state' rule and should be binned.

Please support this suggestion

Investigation versus Traffic Delay.

Coach Driver’s Quote: "if they possibly can they’ll close both carriageways for a broken wing mirror”.

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM:

Many of us have strong views on drink driving, speeding etc. Traffic delays due to accidents and road works cause major annoyance and legislation fuelled by frantic press demands pours out weekly.

This said, many of our current motoring problems stem directly from this very pressure and government response. Health and safety, political correctness and over zealous forensic investigation (just because we can) merely add to the problem. Clearly our police officers, highway workers and other emergency personnel are entitled to safe working conditions and none of us would disagree with their oft-expressed desire “to go home alive at the end of our shifts”.

We hear daily on radio that two, three or four motorway sections have been shut down completely, slip roads closed, lanes reduced or rolling road blocks put in force…….and why?  An accident, a caravan on its side, a lorry jack-knifed, a fire on the hard shoulder, an object on the carriageway, a fuel or chemical spillage, road works, a vehicle in contact with a bridge, an unexplained police incident, an investigation and other recurrent explanations.

Sometimes it is hoped to have the carriageway open “in a day or two”, “by this time tomorrow,” “by tonight or in a few hours” and meanwhile traffic tails back, becomes trapped and the people involved are unable to go about their normal lives for intolerable periods. Millions of working hours are lost, tragic social costs incurred, valuable vehicles and machinery immobilised and costly fuel wasted.

Years ago when a road accident occurred, the injured were released by the fire brigade if trapped and taken away by ambulance; police chalked the position of the vehicles and then obtained details of the drivers, vehicles and witnesses and arranged for recovery; the road was then re-opened. In the event of a fatality, photographs would be taken and the Coroner informed. Other formalities were dealt with in a safely parked patrol car or police station and the scene fully examined later. Keeping the highway open was a major priority!

 

MY IDEA IS INITIALLY TO ESTABLISH:

How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? 

How many lives are saved?  How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards?

What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious?

Should there be a new offence or civil redress for selfish third parties causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social or seriously incompetent driving?

Does anyone know?

 


WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

This whole subject needs thorough independent examination but the following possible solutions might be worth consideration:

 

  • A Highway Complaints Authority should be initiated like the Police Complaints Commision.
  • A Senior Emergency Officer should be placed in command of every incident likely to cause more than minor (say 15 minutes) delay and required to account formally for excessive periods. A 35 mile tailback should require automatic and full independent investigation .
  • Apart from prosecutions under the RTAs for causing death, dangerous & careless driving etc. a new offence of causing unnecessary obstruction and delay to other road users should be introduced.
  • Individuals suffering significant loss and expense should have easy redress against such offenders for resultant loss and damage and insurers required to underwrite them in their motor policies.
  • Vehicles and equipment should be cleared from the carriageway immediately (with Crown Indemnity for damage) by heavy-duty recovery vehicles on stand-by 24/7 under the supervision of the new yellow and black Traffic Department.
  • The obstructing vehicle(s) or equipment would then have to wait to be removed from the hard-shoulder, hedge, ditch etc. till overnight or whenever safety and traffic conditions permitted but at the expense of those responsible for it’s immobility…….certainly not from the public purse.

 

MY ATTACHMENT is a reply to a very similar enquiry I made to my  Member of Parliament from the Department for Transport, last July. Not surprisingly, it provides an excellent summary of and justification for the status quo, but it fails miserably to answer my actual questions:

" How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? How many lives are saved? How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards? What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious? Should there be a new offence or civil redress for causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social driving?"

The Under Secretary's reply begs the further question,

"is it not time and of sufficient national importance for there to be an overreaching authority responsible to the public for ensuring the Queens Highway is kept unobstructed at all times by default and monitor all these "judgements" by individuals?"
 


Please see the Attachment correspondence.

Why is this idea important?

Coach Driver’s Quote: "if they possibly can they’ll close both carriageways for a broken wing mirror”.

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM:

Many of us have strong views on drink driving, speeding etc. Traffic delays due to accidents and road works cause major annoyance and legislation fuelled by frantic press demands pours out weekly.

This said, many of our current motoring problems stem directly from this very pressure and government response. Health and safety, political correctness and over zealous forensic investigation (just because we can) merely add to the problem. Clearly our police officers, highway workers and other emergency personnel are entitled to safe working conditions and none of us would disagree with their oft-expressed desire “to go home alive at the end of our shifts”.

We hear daily on radio that two, three or four motorway sections have been shut down completely, slip roads closed, lanes reduced or rolling road blocks put in force…….and why?  An accident, a caravan on its side, a lorry jack-knifed, a fire on the hard shoulder, an object on the carriageway, a fuel or chemical spillage, road works, a vehicle in contact with a bridge, an unexplained police incident, an investigation and other recurrent explanations.

Sometimes it is hoped to have the carriageway open “in a day or two”, “by this time tomorrow,” “by tonight or in a few hours” and meanwhile traffic tails back, becomes trapped and the people involved are unable to go about their normal lives for intolerable periods. Millions of working hours are lost, tragic social costs incurred, valuable vehicles and machinery immobilised and costly fuel wasted.

Years ago when a road accident occurred, the injured were released by the fire brigade if trapped and taken away by ambulance; police chalked the position of the vehicles and then obtained details of the drivers, vehicles and witnesses and arranged for recovery; the road was then re-opened. In the event of a fatality, photographs would be taken and the Coroner informed. Other formalities were dealt with in a safely parked patrol car or police station and the scene fully examined later. Keeping the highway open was a major priority!

 

MY IDEA IS INITIALLY TO ESTABLISH:

How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? 

How many lives are saved?  How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards?

What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious?

Should there be a new offence or civil redress for selfish third parties causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social or seriously incompetent driving?

Does anyone know?

 


WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

This whole subject needs thorough independent examination but the following possible solutions might be worth consideration:

 

  • A Highway Complaints Authority should be initiated like the Police Complaints Commision.
  • A Senior Emergency Officer should be placed in command of every incident likely to cause more than minor (say 15 minutes) delay and required to account formally for excessive periods. A 35 mile tailback should require automatic and full independent investigation .
  • Apart from prosecutions under the RTAs for causing death, dangerous & careless driving etc. a new offence of causing unnecessary obstruction and delay to other road users should be introduced.
  • Individuals suffering significant loss and expense should have easy redress against such offenders for resultant loss and damage and insurers required to underwrite them in their motor policies.
  • Vehicles and equipment should be cleared from the carriageway immediately (with Crown Indemnity for damage) by heavy-duty recovery vehicles on stand-by 24/7 under the supervision of the new yellow and black Traffic Department.
  • The obstructing vehicle(s) or equipment would then have to wait to be removed from the hard-shoulder, hedge, ditch etc. till overnight or whenever safety and traffic conditions permitted but at the expense of those responsible for it’s immobility…….certainly not from the public purse.

 

MY ATTACHMENT is a reply to a very similar enquiry I made to my  Member of Parliament from the Department for Transport, last July. Not surprisingly, it provides an excellent summary of and justification for the status quo, but it fails miserably to answer my actual questions:

" How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? How many lives are saved? How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards? What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious? Should there be a new offence or civil redress for causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social driving?"

The Under Secretary's reply begs the further question,

"is it not time and of sufficient national importance for there to be an overreaching authority responsible to the public for ensuring the Queens Highway is kept unobstructed at all times by default and monitor all these "judgements" by individuals?"
 


Please see the Attachment correspondence.

Investigation versus Traffic Delay.

Coach Driver’s Quote: "if they possibly can they’ll close both carriageways for a broken wing mirror”.

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM:

Many of us have strong views on drink driving, speeding etc. Traffic delays due to accidents and road works cause major annoyance and legislation fuelled by frantic press demands pours out weekly.

This said, many of our current motoring problems stem directly from this very pressure and government response. Health and safety, political correctness and over zealous forensic investigation (just because we can) merely add to the problem. Clearly our police officers, highway workers and other emergency personnel are entitled to safe working conditions and none of us would disagree with their oft-expressed desire “to go home alive at the end of our shifts”.

We hear daily on radio that two, three or four motorway sections have been shut down completely, slip roads closed, lanes reduced or rolling road blocks put in force…….and why?  An accident, a caravan on its side, a lorry jack-knifed, a fire on the hard shoulder, an object on the carriageway, a fuel or chemical spillage, road works, a vehicle in contact with a bridge, an unexplained police incident, an investigation and other recurrent explanations.

Sometimes it is hoped to have the carriageway open “in a day or two”, “by this time tomorrow,” “by tonight or in a few hours” and meanwhile traffic tails back, becomes trapped and the people involved are unable to go about their normal lives for intolerable periods. Millions of working hours are lost, tragic social costs incurred, valuable vehicles and machinery immobilised and costly fuel wasted.

Years ago when a road accident occurred, the injured were released by the fire brigade if trapped and taken away by ambulance; police chalked the position of the vehicles and then obtained details of the drivers, vehicles and witnesses and arranged for recovery; the road was then re-opened. In the event of a fatality, photographs would be taken and the Coroner informed. Other formalities were dealt with in a safely parked patrol car or police station and the scene fully examined later. Keeping the highway open was a major priority!

 

MY IDEA IS INITIALLY TO ESTABLISH:

How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? 

How many lives are saved?  How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards?

What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious?

Should there be a new offence or civil redress for selfish third parties causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social or seriously incompetent driving?

Does anyone know?

 


WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

This whole subject needs thorough independent examination but the following possible solutions might be worth consideration:

 

 A Highway Complaints Authority should be initiated like the Police Complaints Commision.

 A Senior Emergency Officer should be placed in command of every incident likely to cause more than minor (say 15 minutes) delay and required to account formally for excessive periods. A 35 mile tailback should require automatic and full independent investigation .

 Apart from prosecutions under the RTAs for causing death, dangerous & careless driving etc. a new offence of causing unnecessary obstruction and delay to other road users should be introduced.

 Individuals suffering significant loss and expense should have easy redress against such offenders for resultant loss and damage and insurers required to underwrite them in their motor policies.

 Vehicles and equipment should be cleared from the carriageway immediately (with Crown Indemnity for damage) by heavy-duty recovery vehicles on stand-by 24/7 under the supervision of the new yellow and black Traffic Department.  

The obstructing vehicle(s) or equipment would then have to wait to be removed from the hard-shoulder, hedge, ditch etc. till overnight or whenever safety and traffic conditions permitted but at the expense of those responsible for it’s immobility…….certainly not from the public purse.
 


 
 


 

Why is this idea important?

Coach Driver’s Quote: "if they possibly can they’ll close both carriageways for a broken wing mirror”.

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM:

Many of us have strong views on drink driving, speeding etc. Traffic delays due to accidents and road works cause major annoyance and legislation fuelled by frantic press demands pours out weekly.

This said, many of our current motoring problems stem directly from this very pressure and government response. Health and safety, political correctness and over zealous forensic investigation (just because we can) merely add to the problem. Clearly our police officers, highway workers and other emergency personnel are entitled to safe working conditions and none of us would disagree with their oft-expressed desire “to go home alive at the end of our shifts”.

We hear daily on radio that two, three or four motorway sections have been shut down completely, slip roads closed, lanes reduced or rolling road blocks put in force…….and why?  An accident, a caravan on its side, a lorry jack-knifed, a fire on the hard shoulder, an object on the carriageway, a fuel or chemical spillage, road works, a vehicle in contact with a bridge, an unexplained police incident, an investigation and other recurrent explanations.

Sometimes it is hoped to have the carriageway open “in a day or two”, “by this time tomorrow,” “by tonight or in a few hours” and meanwhile traffic tails back, becomes trapped and the people involved are unable to go about their normal lives for intolerable periods. Millions of working hours are lost, tragic social costs incurred, valuable vehicles and machinery immobilised and costly fuel wasted.

Years ago when a road accident occurred, the injured were released by the fire brigade if trapped and taken away by ambulance; police chalked the position of the vehicles and then obtained details of the drivers, vehicles and witnesses and arranged for recovery; the road was then re-opened. In the event of a fatality, photographs would be taken and the Coroner informed. Other formalities were dealt with in a safely parked patrol car or police station and the scene fully examined later. Keeping the highway open was a major priority!

 

MY IDEA IS INITIALLY TO ESTABLISH:

How many drivers the subject of these long forensic investigations and health and safety measures actually come to court, are convicted and banned for life; how many return to the motorway to repeat their offences? 

How many lives are saved?  How is the phenomenal cost of all this inconvenience measured against improved driving standards?

What is the justification for hours of repetitive research into the ******** obvious?

Should there be a new offence or civil redress for selfish third parties causing unnecessary delay on a public highway by anti-social or seriously incompetent driving?

Does anyone know?

 


WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

This whole subject needs thorough independent examination but the following possible solutions might be worth consideration:

 

 A Highway Complaints Authority should be initiated like the Police Complaints Commision.

 A Senior Emergency Officer should be placed in command of every incident likely to cause more than minor (say 15 minutes) delay and required to account formally for excessive periods. A 35 mile tailback should require automatic and full independent investigation .

 Apart from prosecutions under the RTAs for causing death, dangerous & careless driving etc. a new offence of causing unnecessary obstruction and delay to other road users should be introduced.

 Individuals suffering significant loss and expense should have easy redress against such offenders for resultant loss and damage and insurers required to underwrite them in their motor policies.

 Vehicles and equipment should be cleared from the carriageway immediately (with Crown Indemnity for damage) by heavy-duty recovery vehicles on stand-by 24/7 under the supervision of the new yellow and black Traffic Department.  

The obstructing vehicle(s) or equipment would then have to wait to be removed from the hard-shoulder, hedge, ditch etc. till overnight or whenever safety and traffic conditions permitted but at the expense of those responsible for it’s immobility…….certainly not from the public purse.
 


 
 


 

Save business time and the environment – get rid of uneccessary one-way or bus only

The idea is simple, withdraw much of the so-called road improvements which means traffic has to travel much further than it did in the past. Road planners should not be full time in the one city, as they tinker around with changes roads to keep themselves occupied. There should be a central core of road planners, shared between towns and cities, so only urgent and worthwhile improvements are made.  Worwhile means, does it make it shorter to get from A to B. This will reduce local government costs, reduce tax spent, increase journy times, and considerably reduce the fuel spent going the long way to get to ones destination.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, withdraw much of the so-called road improvements which means traffic has to travel much further than it did in the past. Road planners should not be full time in the one city, as they tinker around with changes roads to keep themselves occupied. There should be a central core of road planners, shared between towns and cities, so only urgent and worthwhile improvements are made.  Worwhile means, does it make it shorter to get from A to B. This will reduce local government costs, reduce tax spent, increase journy times, and considerably reduce the fuel spent going the long way to get to ones destination.

Allow “left-turn on red traffic light” at city traffic intersections

In Canada, and I think in the USA, it is legal to do a right-turn on a red traffic light. This has of course to be done with care. But the result is that traffic flow is increased, especially in heavily built-up areas.

Having lived in Canada for 15 years, I saw this operating without any problem.

Why is this idea important?

In Canada, and I think in the USA, it is legal to do a right-turn on a red traffic light. This has of course to be done with care. But the result is that traffic flow is increased, especially in heavily built-up areas.

Having lived in Canada for 15 years, I saw this operating without any problem.

Allow councils to control traffic flow

At present, I believe the Road Traffic Act prevents simple but effective changes to be made to local traffic rules on the highway. Power to make immediate, radical, simple and effective changes should be given to local councils. This would mean faster decisions could be made according to local conditions.

One major result would be that many roads could be made one-way either short or long-term, and over short or long-distance. My reasons are explained below.

Why is this idea important?

At present, I believe the Road Traffic Act prevents simple but effective changes to be made to local traffic rules on the highway. Power to make immediate, radical, simple and effective changes should be given to local councils. This would mean faster decisions could be made according to local conditions.

One major result would be that many roads could be made one-way either short or long-term, and over short or long-distance. My reasons are explained below.

Stop traffic wardens looking like Police

The Labour Government thought it would be a great idea to give the Traffic Wardens in Britain the same uniform that the Police wear so that they would get the same respect the Police achieve.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour Government thought it would be a great idea to give the Traffic Wardens in Britain the same uniform that the Police wear so that they would get the same respect the Police achieve.

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.

Regular Mandatory Sight Examinations for all Drivers

That all drivers are required by law to have regular sight examinations and the person carryng out the examination has to make a report to the DVLA in order for that person to continue to drive.

Why is this idea important?

That all drivers are required by law to have regular sight examinations and the person carryng out the examination has to make a report to the DVLA in order for that person to continue to drive.

Allow undertaking on Motorways

Changing lanes on a motorway is one of the most dangerous exercises you can do. At present the rules state you should stay in lane 1 where possible. Thus to overtake a slow car in lane 1 you have to pull out into 2 and perhaps 3 and then back to 2 and back to 1. And you should do this continuously as you reach another car!  Everyone doing this according to the rules would actually cause mayhem.

In fact people stay in the lane they are in and just overtake as necessary so part of my proposal is already there. I suggest instead of changing lanes to avoid undertaking so can just continue on until you reach a slower car. For instance if you are in lane 2 and reach a slower car, then if lane 3 is full you move to lane 1 and stay there until you reach a slower car. 

Why is this idea important?

Changing lanes on a motorway is one of the most dangerous exercises you can do. At present the rules state you should stay in lane 1 where possible. Thus to overtake a slow car in lane 1 you have to pull out into 2 and perhaps 3 and then back to 2 and back to 1. And you should do this continuously as you reach another car!  Everyone doing this according to the rules would actually cause mayhem.

In fact people stay in the lane they are in and just overtake as necessary so part of my proposal is already there. I suggest instead of changing lanes to avoid undertaking so can just continue on until you reach a slower car. For instance if you are in lane 2 and reach a slower car, then if lane 3 is full you move to lane 1 and stay there until you reach a slower car. 

No black boxes, open source devices used by the police

Devices like speed guns etc should all be open source so all concerned can be sure they are working correctly, and highlight errors if they are not.  There is no justice from a black box.

One highly suspect device in current use is the LTI 20-20 laser speed gun.  Give us the source code so we can inspect it:

http://governmenttransparency.net/

Why is this idea important?

Devices like speed guns etc should all be open source so all concerned can be sure they are working correctly, and highlight errors if they are not.  There is no justice from a black box.

One highly suspect device in current use is the LTI 20-20 laser speed gun.  Give us the source code so we can inspect it:

http://governmenttransparency.net/

Scrap Bus Lanes

Scrap Bus Lanes and get the country moving again. I sit in the London traffic watching Bus after Bus using the Bus Lane with just a few passengers on board, a good example is Gower street and New Kent Road. Open up the roads and get rid of the 'Traffic Calming' barriers which turn the side streets into 'Dead ends'

Why is this idea important?

Scrap Bus Lanes and get the country moving again. I sit in the London traffic watching Bus after Bus using the Bus Lane with just a few passengers on board, a good example is Gower street and New Kent Road. Open up the roads and get rid of the 'Traffic Calming' barriers which turn the side streets into 'Dead ends'