The Traffic Signs Regulations should not have authority over footpaths and cycleways

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

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.

Legalise walking and cycling through (some) red lights

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Out and About: Mending Broken Britain

1. Walkways on all ways in Britain with wider more pleasant pavements in towns/villages/cities to encourage people to want to walk down the road.

Why dont people walk on the pavements?

a) Because many ways in Britain dont have any and you would be run over walking down narrow country roads which dont have any pavement. In these instances create walkways, if necessary behind ancient hedgerows so all pedestrians can travel down all the ways of Britain. The car should not have priority over the individual. I have taken holidays with my children in Britains country cottages and been hostage to travelling by car. It is a disgrace.

b) Because narrow or no pavements are unpleasant places to travel along compared to car use. I am 50 years old and would like to have a pavement wide enough not to have lorry dust blown into my face when I walk, to be able to pass looked after planters (looked after by community members) and seats for the elderly. To have the highway code give pedestrians greater  right over cars so they can cross roads more easily. Will it happen in my lifetime? I hope so!

2. Cycle lanes on all ways in Britain for the reasons above. I cannot cummute to work as I would be certain to be knocked off my bike at some time. The odd 50m of cycle lane at a junction doesn't help.

It may be necessary to push building lines back to allow wider pavements and cycle lanes to be incorporated into the fabric of our communities.

Why is this idea important?

1. Walkways on all ways in Britain with wider more pleasant pavements in towns/villages/cities to encourage people to want to walk down the road.

Why dont people walk on the pavements?

a) Because many ways in Britain dont have any and you would be run over walking down narrow country roads which dont have any pavement. In these instances create walkways, if necessary behind ancient hedgerows so all pedestrians can travel down all the ways of Britain. The car should not have priority over the individual. I have taken holidays with my children in Britains country cottages and been hostage to travelling by car. It is a disgrace.

b) Because narrow or no pavements are unpleasant places to travel along compared to car use. I am 50 years old and would like to have a pavement wide enough not to have lorry dust blown into my face when I walk, to be able to pass looked after planters (looked after by community members) and seats for the elderly. To have the highway code give pedestrians greater  right over cars so they can cross roads more easily. Will it happen in my lifetime? I hope so!

2. Cycle lanes on all ways in Britain for the reasons above. I cannot cummute to work as I would be certain to be knocked off my bike at some time. The odd 50m of cycle lane at a junction doesn't help.

It may be necessary to push building lines back to allow wider pavements and cycle lanes to be incorporated into the fabric of our communities.

MR. M. A. NICHOLLS. The right to roam insurance.

My surgestion is about the right to roam. My post code is Scottish but I live in England, This is IMPORTANT as different contries have different laws. I  have a small farm in England ,and several footpaths and bridal ways run through it. I agree that people should have the privelage to walk around and see the beauty of the contry side . However I appose that I have to pay nearly £100 in insurance for other people to do this, + anohter 1% in insurance tax increase to be implemented after the June budget. If people whish to do this they should be made to take out their own insurance. I should not be liable for the county councils footpaths. To call out a rescue helecopter would cost several hundred if not thousand of £s to launch and rescue. Most other types of out door enjoyment like sailing , it would be the responsibility of the boats owner to take out their own insurance. Why not hikers? , Today has become an American claim and sue culture, you see many adverts on the tv surgesting you should . Say if I was in somebodies garden stealing apples from their tree and fell and hurt my self , nothing would be done. However if someone was blackberry picking on my land and the same happened they would try sue me .THIS LAW IS A FARCE. In fact the only place you can be done for tresspassing in England is on a military base or a railway line which used to encure a 40 shillings fine.

 

BY the way LIB DEMS what happened to your fair, Local income tax system to replace the council tax, I did not hear anything about it in the run up to the general elections. Have you ditched the idea.

Why is this idea important?

My surgestion is about the right to roam. My post code is Scottish but I live in England, This is IMPORTANT as different contries have different laws. I  have a small farm in England ,and several footpaths and bridal ways run through it. I agree that people should have the privelage to walk around and see the beauty of the contry side . However I appose that I have to pay nearly £100 in insurance for other people to do this, + anohter 1% in insurance tax increase to be implemented after the June budget. If people whish to do this they should be made to take out their own insurance. I should not be liable for the county councils footpaths. To call out a rescue helecopter would cost several hundred if not thousand of £s to launch and rescue. Most other types of out door enjoyment like sailing , it would be the responsibility of the boats owner to take out their own insurance. Why not hikers? , Today has become an American claim and sue culture, you see many adverts on the tv surgesting you should . Say if I was in somebodies garden stealing apples from their tree and fell and hurt my self , nothing would be done. However if someone was blackberry picking on my land and the same happened they would try sue me .THIS LAW IS A FARCE. In fact the only place you can be done for tresspassing in England is on a military base or a railway line which used to encure a 40 shillings fine.

 

BY the way LIB DEMS what happened to your fair, Local income tax system to replace the council tax, I did not hear anything about it in the run up to the general elections. Have you ditched the idea.

Dog access to grouse moors

Dogs should be alowed to walk on grouse moors outside shooting days on a short lead. Some areas resrict large areas of access land from dog owners when they are only used for shooting 1 or 2 days a year. Dogs on a lead will cause no more disturbance than other walkers throughout the year. Many or the restrictions are not sign posted from the road so that you only come across them half way through a walk. Many of the restrictions are in place because land owners do not like the CROW act and are only trying to get their own back by putting as many obstacles in the way of walkers rather than for practical reasons associated with their livelyhood. This seems to be a problem in largwe ares of Northumberland, Durham and East Cumbria. The grouse moors in Derbyshire, and Yorkshire all sem to opperate perfectly well without trying to enforce dog bans.

Why is this idea important?

Dogs should be alowed to walk on grouse moors outside shooting days on a short lead. Some areas resrict large areas of access land from dog owners when they are only used for shooting 1 or 2 days a year. Dogs on a lead will cause no more disturbance than other walkers throughout the year. Many or the restrictions are not sign posted from the road so that you only come across them half way through a walk. Many of the restrictions are in place because land owners do not like the CROW act and are only trying to get their own back by putting as many obstacles in the way of walkers rather than for practical reasons associated with their livelyhood. This seems to be a problem in largwe ares of Northumberland, Durham and East Cumbria. The grouse moors in Derbyshire, and Yorkshire all sem to opperate perfectly well without trying to enforce dog bans.