........what would it be?
I am, of course, talking in terms of motoring. Me? Well, I'd change a few things. Off the top of my head;
-Introduce variable motorway speed-limits, between 50 & 90 mph depending on conditions.
-Include car-control (skid pan) course in driving exam.
-Free manufacturers from certain suffocating safety and emissions regulations.
-Flat-rate road fund licence.
-Tougher penalties for uninsured drivers.
-Embark on a road-building programme to bring us into the 21st century.
-Replace all speed cameras with radar speed signs and traffic police.
-Bring back fixed fuel duty, abolish escalator.
-Replace all unsightly traffic calming measures with radar speed signs.
|
-Bring back fixed fuel duty abolish escalator.
The escalator went years ago. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator
Edited by NowWheels on 26/01/2009 at 19:56
|
I don't want to pick holes in your manifesto, but I don't have a problem with speed cameras, as I have never been done by one. Traffic police (usually hiding in a bush) with their radar guns are the real problem, so leave off the Gatsos.
I'd ban lorries from the road between 7am and 7pm.
Edited by krs one on 26/01/2009 at 20:23
|
I'd ban lorries from the road between 7am and 7pm.
An excellent idea, traffic free towns and cities....unfortunately nothing to buy, and no car to drive there in.
|
No, it would be quite wrong to ban any type of vehicle arbitrarily like that. It would be much more useful just to ban them from the roads I wish to use at the times I wish to use them. I would be more than willing to give 24 hours notice of any such restrictions on a suitable website.....
;-)
|
|
|
An excellent idea traffic free towns and cities....unfortunately nothing to buy and no car to drive there in.
You got there before me GB; amazing how many adults must still believe in Santa, all those deliveries done in one night and not a single half-hour overtake! ;-)
|
one night and not a single half-hour overtake! ;-)
;))
Swift hijack HM, was in your neck of the woods last week, maybe week before and on the Welshpool to Newtown road a low loader had lost a Dozer (big brute too), by the look of it he'd caught the blade on something on the nearside and dragged the thing off, that must have been early morn, i passed him Aberwyst bound at about 6.30am and he was still there with resident plod at about 10ish.
Did you hear anything about it?
Hijack over..;)
|
|
|
>>all those deliveries done in one night and not a single half-hour overtake! ;-)
...and no flaming peace at night either!
Edited by Manatee on 26/01/2009 at 22:36
|
|
News to me GB, but not an uncommon happening round there; as you'll know it's a horrible road in an artic. I tend to go the long way round via A470, it's just as quick especially if I'm loaded.
|
|
Crap road if you want the toilet or fuel though - especially after dark ! Having overtaken a couple of wagons near Builth Wells and then reluctant to stop lest they pass me ended up cruising on fumes into Dolgellau with both needs needing attention rather badly.
|
my bit of changed legislation would be severe penalty for not registering car, even seizure like the no insurance stuff
much crime is committed with unregistered vehicles over and above the disqualified drivers and the like
|
|
Interesting article on You and Yours today on some Op that the Met have been doing to target cloned plates and so-called shadow addresses.
|
|
|
my bit of changed legislation would be severe penalty for not registering car even seizure like the no insurance stuff much crime is committed with unregistered vehicles over and above the disqualified drivers and the like
That's a very good idea. What are the existing penalties?
|
|
it's a fairly derisory fine only....i'll see if i can find it to be more specific
|
|
|
|
Hey! How come you got away with saying carp?
|
|
|
Crap road if you want the toilet ........
Good pun!
|
I'd make it mandatory for foreign vehicles to buy a road licence at the border - partly so we know who they are in case of accidents, how long they've been in the country etc.
I'd bring in mandatory top-up training every 3-5 years (not a test).
I'd take extreme measures to get uninsured and unlicenced drivers off the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd ban lorries from the road between 7am and 7pm."
HGVs are banned at the weekends where I live with very few exemptions for fresh produce carriers. It works well. If you have to make a journey that involves a hundred miles of single-lane carriageways, it's far quicker at the weekend. That's why I always plan my trips to the UK on a Saturday or Sunday.
And the shops are full too.
|
I would definitely put an end to the derisory fines for uninsured drivers. Crushing their £100 banger and fining them £250 is not a deterrent when they've got away without paying (for arguments sake) £400 annual insurance bill for years.
I would work out the fine in the same way they calculate penalties for companies caught with unlicensed computer software. Go back to the last date they can prove they were legal, calculate the "lost" revenue between that point and this, add a zero, and stick a bung on top for the trouble. Make it properly hurt.
Oh, and make poor motorway lane discipline, and incorrect use of fog lights endorsable offences. I actually think the former would make a noticeable contribution to reducing congestion.
Edited by DP on 27/01/2009 at 08:14
|
DP
...you have put my muse mode on....
Funny is it not that a car with no driver or Excise documentation is considered to be that dangerous that it can be siezed and eventually possibly crushed.
Whereas one driven at 90 mph in a bua remains intact.
Penalties and the law often at variance?
Muse.....OFF
dvd
|
Could I vote for the Human Rights Act please?
Steve.
|
Could I vote for the Human Rights Act please?
Wish they'd never banned the belt, eh? :-)
|
Ah the belt - I had that a few times in my childhood - it taught me right from wrong very quickly. I think the view is that if the youth of today steal or mug people they get i-pods.
In terms of changing legislation, I would make it mandatory for the country to vote for a PM and it's cabinet.
That way we could vote Gordon and Mandy out after years of paying hand over fist for the privilege of motoring in the UK.
I would also ban speed cameras so I could watch the road when driving and not my speedo and the pavement where the cameras might be.
|
I would also ban speed cameras so I could watch the road when driving and not my speedo and the pavement where the cameras might be.
Some common sense at last! That's exactly why I favour those new speed warning signs.
I'm way too young to have got the belt at school, I wonder if youths really were better disciplined in the olden days.......... Rose-tinted specs, perhaps?
When I come to power, I shall think hard about your proposal for mandatory voting, not sure even that would help though!!
|
I'm way too young to have got the belt at school I wonder if youths really were better disciplined in the olden days.......... Rose-tinted specs perhaps?
I was there, believe me It works!
|
|
I was there too. We had one teacher who used it a bit too much., well a lot too much actually. He even took it home and used it on his wife. That resulted in him going to prison in the end but hitting kids with it was seen as OK.
|
|
Sometimes I think it's the parents of these little @!*%!'s that should be blootered and not the kids themselves!
|
We need fewer laws, not more.
I'd start with abolishing the requirement to wear seat belts.
|
I'd start with abolishing the requirement to wear seat belts.
Why, you live a long way from serious medical help.
|
>> I'd start with abolishing the requirement to wear seat belts. Why? you live a long way from serious medical help.
Why? Because I don't believe in laws that are designed to protect people from their own stupidity. I believe in wearing a seatbelt. I don't believe in making it a legal requirement.
|
I'd start with abolishing the requirement to wear seat belts.
speak to someone who regularly attends accidents...you'd change your mind pronto. That is one of the best pieces of legislation yet for saving life.
I'm convinced that our seat belt laws and the UK population's propensity to comply with the law is a major reason why our fatal accident figures are more than reasonable when compared to other countries.
|
our fatal accident figures are more than reasonablewhen compared to other countries.
Unlike HMG, I do not believe we should be legislating to improve our figures and statistics.
|
Unlike HMG I do not believe we should be legislating to improve our figures and statistics.
why not? Fatal accidents have a cost over and above the obvious tragedy to relatives etc. If something fairly simple like having a piece of cloth strapped across your body can save a life, then why not?
Some people, if not many...do need legislation to save themsleves from impending doom.
|
>>Why not?
I guess that it comes down to philosophy.
I believe that criminal law exists to stop me from doing things that are dangerous to other people, and things that cause harm to other people, not to improve statistics.
Nor do I believe that the state exists to save me from myself.
|
I agree that the parents should be held responsible for their offsprings actions, if the local bobby gave me a (usually well deserved) clip round the ear I would hope he didnt tell my dad or I would get another one.
Humph - there bad apples in all walks of life.
Not legislation, but I would change the governments anti motorist policy.
|
bad apples
Aye, I know ON. I wasn't particularly arguing with you. It's just that the institution referred to had something of a barrel full of them at the time. Fortunately it was very close to an A&E dept ! We used to see a lot of "Rugby" injuries. I imagine it's better now. It was a very long time ago.
|
|
|
|
allowed to use bus lanes when taking the next left.
dont introduce skid control into driving test.
the rest sounds good to me.
|
|
|
I genuinely believe that the more rules and regulations you impose on people, the less inclined they are to think for themselves.
Unfortunately, an advancing 'nanny state' is like a vicious circle or a 'ratchet effect' if you will. Once people are bound by a law that exists solely to protect their own well-being, the impression is (amongst the terminally thick) that the state's purpose is to provide an insurance against their own stupidity. Thus anything legal is deemed to be safe, after all, if it was dangerous then someone would have banned it, right?
As for the 'ratchet' effect, once the govt. reduces the need for independent thought and common sense, it is almost impossible to go back to a culture of 'thinking for yourself'.
|
|
can't fault that thinking HS...other than maybe just keep the really important stuff. Same principle as road signage clutter..get rid and only keep the urgent stuff.
|
Quite agree Westpig. If seatbelt laws were repealed, it would send out a very confusing message in a country that legislates so heavily against smoking, for example.
|
Quite agree Westpig. If seatbelt laws were repealed it would send out a very confusing message in a country that legislates so heavily against smoking for example.
I'm a smoker and a determined seatbelt-wearer, and a firm believer that the state should legislate only to prevent people harming others, not to prevent them harming themselves.
Smoking in a public place does impact on the health of others, and some people such as asthmatics can have their lives made miserable by exposure to smoke ... so I think that the ban on smoking in public places is a long overdue good thing. But so long as I'm not exposing others to smoke, I don't see why my addiction is anyone else's business.
So far as the seatbelts go, it is none of the state's business whether I wear one or not. I have a right to endanger my own life provide I don't endanger anyone else's, and an unseatbelted person is a threat only to people sitting in front of them in the same car. So I'm happy to leave this to the driver: every car should have seatbelts fitted, but it should be up to the driver whether to insist that passengers wear them.
If we continue to go down this path of legislation to ban things which don't hurt others, just out of a paternalist desire to run other people's lives for them, I don't know where it will end. Are we going to ban rugby, because of the number of neck injuries it produces? Will people be prevented from risking their lives by potholing or mountaineering or putting to sea in small boats? How about banning people from rotting their brains by reading tabloid newspapers or turning into couch potatoes by watching too much telly?
Edited by NowWheels on 28/01/2009 at 00:14
|
So far as the seatbelts go it is none of the state's business whether I wear one or not. I have a right to endanger my own life provide I don't endanger anyone else's and an unseatbelted person is a threat only to people sitting in front of them in the same car. So I'm happy to leave this to the driver: every car should have seatbelts fitted but it should be up to the driver whether to insist that passengers wear them.
if you saw the state that some people get in through no seatbelt usage i'm convinced you'd change your mind, but nevertheless:
would you agree then that those that wish to opt out of common sense i.e. seat belt wearing, should be billed for any extra injuries occurred in accidents, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for their repair via our taxes
i'm happy to pay for mountain climbing injuries, potholing etc, as they're legitimate sports/ leisure activities...if however someone indulged in say illegal prize fighting, then they should cough up for themseleves as well
|
|
Bring back the Red Flag Act, and start again with a new transport policy.
|
|
|
>>would you agree then that those that wish to opt out of common sense i.e. seat belt wearing, should be billed for any extra injuries occurred in accidents, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for their repair via our taxes?
I can't speak for NW, but I would certainly agree.
Frankly, I think that mountain climbers etc should have to pay as well, perhaps through insurance.
|
Frankly I think that mountain climbers etc should have to pay as well perhaps through insurance.>>
I agree, when I ski abroad I have medical and public liability insurance, why not in the UK for self inflicted sport injury.
Edited by Old Navy on 28/01/2009 at 11:50
|
Frankly I think that mountain climbers etc should have to pay as well perhaps through insurance.........why not in the UK for self inflicted sport injury?
I don't really agree, I think the NHS should cover everyone for everything. Compulsory insurance would discriminate against poorer people who also want to participate in hazardous sports/activities.
As far as public services go, I think they should be either fully supported and fully comprehensive or not exist at all. If you starve them of resources and impose too many restrictions, it gets to the stage where it would be far better value to abandon them completely. For example, an excellent service costing £100m is surely better value than a half-baked, restricted service costing £50m. As I see it, you should either fully commit to something otherwise don't bother.
|
Only one? Tricky.....but I can do it...
Increase the fine for driving without insurance to at least £2,000, confiscate the car, and after two weeks, dismantle it and use the parts for repairing cars where appropriate, otherwise crush it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
