National petition & action
Discussion
I, as most people, am getting seriously 
off with the big brother style the UK is suddenly acquiring.
Who is up for a National petition and possible some kind of action against it? People who remember me (from a while back now) will remember i wanted to start a 'driving' site, like this one, with more options, articles, sales, lessons & 'Tutorials', but am, myself, against ripping ideas. I registered www.drivingassist.co.uk and have never used it, but i think now is the time to use it! Make a petition, an action plan against big brother, and hopefully get the greater majority of motorists against this damn-nation, and put a stop to it once and for all...
I believe if enough of us get together, we can stop the misuse and abuse of camera's, and maybe the use of camera's all together. Though this is a large step from now, but we don't need camera's, we don't need motorway tolls every other mile billing us for driving 2 miles @ 6pm at night just because the government feel like terrorizing us for 'poluting' the atmosphere.
With a lot of help from yourselves, and (Sorry, i forgot your name) the webmaster/owner of this site, we have a fighting chance.
I'm sure if enough of us moan an winge, and make enough fuss publically, the laws will change.
We should crack down on the drug pushers and the real criminals, NOT the drivers of Britain who drive to work every day to earn an honest living, as things are getting so damn expensive these days.
I recently heared that the government or someone similar wanted to reduce the 'class' of Cannabis as to catch the real 'drug pushers' such as Ecstasy and Cocaine etc.
Though while this is happening, driving laws are becoming stricter by the day, ok, there are several 'pros' for Cannabis, such as a medical 'pain relief' for many millions, and it is, of course cleaner and healthier than Tobacco, but driving on this substance is as dangerous as drink driving.
The UK government must be compiled full of useless, introvert tossers, as i can't see the reasoning for any of their recent driving laws bar the fact camera's must now be visible at least.
Excuse my language, but i feel highly annoyed about this subject, as im sure a lot of others do. And as for the 'Cannabis' argument, I know the ins and outs of the substance, I know from personal experience (not that im proud to say) of what it does to you, and know how it could benefit 'users' in order to overcome day to day pain, as i watched my father die of Cancer, which, years ago, i thought was a painless disease.
My main reason, yes im getting back to the point, for posting this is to see if we could, as a whole, stop moaning about situations we have come across and driving laws we are not happy about, and actually do something worth while against this great injustice, petition, strike, bring the UK to a stand still once again, but anything is better than just moaning.
I admire those of us who refuse to pay speeding fines etc, as they are some of the very few of us who are actually prepared to do something about the UK's Big Brother-hood.
All those in favour, give your tuppence worth!
off with the big brother style the UK is suddenly acquiring. Who is up for a National petition and possible some kind of action against it? People who remember me (from a while back now) will remember i wanted to start a 'driving' site, like this one, with more options, articles, sales, lessons & 'Tutorials', but am, myself, against ripping ideas. I registered www.drivingassist.co.uk and have never used it, but i think now is the time to use it! Make a petition, an action plan against big brother, and hopefully get the greater majority of motorists against this damn-nation, and put a stop to it once and for all...
I believe if enough of us get together, we can stop the misuse and abuse of camera's, and maybe the use of camera's all together. Though this is a large step from now, but we don't need camera's, we don't need motorway tolls every other mile billing us for driving 2 miles @ 6pm at night just because the government feel like terrorizing us for 'poluting' the atmosphere.
With a lot of help from yourselves, and (Sorry, i forgot your name) the webmaster/owner of this site, we have a fighting chance.
I'm sure if enough of us moan an winge, and make enough fuss publically, the laws will change.
We should crack down on the drug pushers and the real criminals, NOT the drivers of Britain who drive to work every day to earn an honest living, as things are getting so damn expensive these days.
I recently heared that the government or someone similar wanted to reduce the 'class' of Cannabis as to catch the real 'drug pushers' such as Ecstasy and Cocaine etc.
Though while this is happening, driving laws are becoming stricter by the day, ok, there are several 'pros' for Cannabis, such as a medical 'pain relief' for many millions, and it is, of course cleaner and healthier than Tobacco, but driving on this substance is as dangerous as drink driving.
The UK government must be compiled full of useless, introvert tossers, as i can't see the reasoning for any of their recent driving laws bar the fact camera's must now be visible at least.
Excuse my language, but i feel highly annoyed about this subject, as im sure a lot of others do. And as for the 'Cannabis' argument, I know the ins and outs of the substance, I know from personal experience (not that im proud to say) of what it does to you, and know how it could benefit 'users' in order to overcome day to day pain, as i watched my father die of Cancer, which, years ago, i thought was a painless disease.
My main reason, yes im getting back to the point, for posting this is to see if we could, as a whole, stop moaning about situations we have come across and driving laws we are not happy about, and actually do something worth while against this great injustice, petition, strike, bring the UK to a stand still once again, but anything is better than just moaning.
I admire those of us who refuse to pay speeding fines etc, as they are some of the very few of us who are actually prepared to do something about the UK's Big Brother-hood.
All those in favour, give your tuppence worth!
WoodE. Join the ABD. They've been doing this for years. And have practical "how-to" tips to protest against particular persecutions of the driver: e.g. New Low Speed Limit In YOur Area etc.
Petitions achieve little, unfortunately - as they are viewed as just one communication.
However - faxing and writing to MPs can and does make an impact. Each letter is considered a seperate communication - and the more communication an MP recieves on a subject the more likely he/she will be to consider the issue a vote-winner and do something about it.
"Chain-letters" which are all the same tend to be viewed as a single communication as well - and often the work of "cranks".
So. Join the ABD. Write to your MP about a range of motoring isses and keep doing it.
BTW: I got the above "low-down" on how to communicate with MPs from two sources. ABD - and, you guessed it, my MP.
Petitions achieve little, unfortunately - as they are viewed as just one communication.
However - faxing and writing to MPs can and does make an impact. Each letter is considered a seperate communication - and the more communication an MP recieves on a subject the more likely he/she will be to consider the issue a vote-winner and do something about it.
"Chain-letters" which are all the same tend to be viewed as a single communication as well - and often the work of "cranks".
So. Join the ABD. Write to your MP about a range of motoring isses and keep doing it.
BTW: I got the above "low-down" on how to communicate with MPs from two sources. ABD - and, you guessed it, my MP.
Again I'd say join the ABD. It began with one guy, Brian Gregory, writing a letter to CAR and a few other magazines expressing exactly the views you present here and ending with a plea for like-minded individuals to join him.
I replied the same day and I'm proud to have been a member ever since although I confess I don't do as much active campaigning as I'd like. I manage to squeeze off the odd letter here and there and have got onto the committee of the local RA where I push the motorist's POV. We've got a good mailing list in East Sussex/Surrey where we can find out about things we need to jump up and down about locally.
Join the club mate, we're right with you.
Steve
I replied the same day and I'm proud to have been a member ever since although I confess I don't do as much active campaigning as I'd like. I manage to squeeze off the odd letter here and there and have got onto the committee of the local RA where I push the motorist's POV. We've got a good mailing list in East Sussex/Surrey where we can find out about things we need to jump up and down about locally.
Join the club mate, we're right with you.
Steve
I've always thought the ABD come across as car-obsessed Sun readers.
An advantage of having camera's everywhere is that there are fewer traffic police cars likely to stop you - so if you know where the camera's are, you can take the piss a bit more elsewhere in safety.
All this govt. bashing annoys me - they're just trying to keep the roads safe. The speed limits are there for everyone, you can't have one limit for an experienced Cerbera driver and another for a 17 y.o. kid driving a fully loaded transit van in the pissing rain that hasn't been MOT'd for 11 months and has done 40K in that time. When such vehicles are 2" off my Chimaera's bumper I'm sometimes happy to come across a camera site and have them back off.
Since the law applies to the transit driver and the TVR driver equally, how much higher do you want the speed limits to be? Or how much less do you want them enforced? Or are you suggesting some kind of speed limit system based on the kind of vehicle you drive, what brakes it has, how experienced you are? Which of course would be impossible to administer.
Just my two penneth worth.
Peter N.
An advantage of having camera's everywhere is that there are fewer traffic police cars likely to stop you - so if you know where the camera's are, you can take the piss a bit more elsewhere in safety.
All this govt. bashing annoys me - they're just trying to keep the roads safe. The speed limits are there for everyone, you can't have one limit for an experienced Cerbera driver and another for a 17 y.o. kid driving a fully loaded transit van in the pissing rain that hasn't been MOT'd for 11 months and has done 40K in that time. When such vehicles are 2" off my Chimaera's bumper I'm sometimes happy to come across a camera site and have them back off.
Since the law applies to the transit driver and the TVR driver equally, how much higher do you want the speed limits to be? Or how much less do you want them enforced? Or are you suggesting some kind of speed limit system based on the kind of vehicle you drive, what brakes it has, how experienced you are? Which of course would be impossible to administer.
Just my two penneth worth.
Peter N.
Your points are exactly right how can a metal sign judge what speed is safe. BUT are you really saying that we should lower the limits to the worst case? A national speed limit road may have bends in it so do you want that lowered.
Speed limits are cr@p they take no consideration of the conditions, traffic, vehicle etc. They should be raised because quite simply they were written back when the Ford Anglia was the family car. People know this and so therefore ignore the limits because they are so unrealistic. (eg did you know that the official stopping distance at 30mph is 23metres and 96metres at 70mph both are totally out with modern cars incl family saloons)
Thats why the govt. bashing. If they use technology to enforce a law which clearly is plain stupid they get everything they deserve. It is quite possible to actually use this technology to increase road safety without it actually concentrating on speed, which has a very low rate for being the "cause of accidents". One example is tail gateing cameras, the gatso can be programmed (quite easily I believe) to perform this task rather than speed.
Just to finish off. If as you say they are trying to improve road safety Why are the cameras HIDDEN and not outside schools and built-up areas where they can do the most good.
They are stuck behind signs, bridges on fast roads (incl. dual carrigeways and motorways) where they have artificially lowered the limit so they can raise money from the revenue.
Wake up - smell the coffee
I have always said that speed limits should be advisory. You should use them as any other warining sign. Remove the "speeding law" and change to dangerous driving. That way the police can pull up a "white tranny van" doing 30 outside the school at 3.30 in the p*ssing rain. Plus they don't have to bother about a TVR doing 120mph on a clear motorway on a sunny afternoon. NOW DOESN'T THAT MAKE SENSE?
rant over
>> Edited by smeagol on Wednesday 20th March 10:08
Speed limits are cr@p they take no consideration of the conditions, traffic, vehicle etc. They should be raised because quite simply they were written back when the Ford Anglia was the family car. People know this and so therefore ignore the limits because they are so unrealistic. (eg did you know that the official stopping distance at 30mph is 23metres and 96metres at 70mph both are totally out with modern cars incl family saloons)
Thats why the govt. bashing. If they use technology to enforce a law which clearly is plain stupid they get everything they deserve. It is quite possible to actually use this technology to increase road safety without it actually concentrating on speed, which has a very low rate for being the "cause of accidents". One example is tail gateing cameras, the gatso can be programmed (quite easily I believe) to perform this task rather than speed.
Just to finish off. If as you say they are trying to improve road safety Why are the cameras HIDDEN and not outside schools and built-up areas where they can do the most good.
They are stuck behind signs, bridges on fast roads (incl. dual carrigeways and motorways) where they have artificially lowered the limit so they can raise money from the revenue.
Wake up - smell the coffee
I have always said that speed limits should be advisory. You should use them as any other warining sign. Remove the "speeding law" and change to dangerous driving. That way the police can pull up a "white tranny van" doing 30 outside the school at 3.30 in the p*ssing rain. Plus they don't have to bother about a TVR doing 120mph on a clear motorway on a sunny afternoon. NOW DOESN'T THAT MAKE SENSE?
rant over
>> Edited by smeagol on Wednesday 20th March 10:08
'All this govt. bashing annoys me - they're just trying to keep the roads safe.'
They're just trying to give the impression of trying to keep the roads safe while raking in some extra tax. Road safety isn't improved by concentrating on one aspect (speeding), but it is a simple solution that our politicians and civil servants can cope with. Joined up thinking on road safety? This lot don't seem to have progressed much beyond joined up writing.
They're just trying to give the impression of trying to keep the roads safe while raking in some extra tax. Road safety isn't improved by concentrating on one aspect (speeding), but it is a simple solution that our politicians and civil servants can cope with. Joined up thinking on road safety? This lot don't seem to have progressed much beyond joined up writing.
WoodE - I think it's safe to say that most people here share your concerns, and we've heard all the arguments on these boards over the last several months...
Like the other guys have, the ABD is pretty much our best shot.
It is very a very frustrating situation to be in - I know, I feel like the last angry man somedays..
The problem is that the poxy government has us by the short and curlies - most enthusiastic motorists are by nature of the resources required a reasonably affluent section of society, with too much to lose from straying into legally messy areas like direct action and vandalism.
It would be easier to get some leverage were it not for the following factors:
1) This fixation on the notion that our (road) safety can be measured and then managed by legal enforcement is a philosophy shared and implemented by every western & Australasian government – so it’s not like our govt. are going out on a limb.
2) There seems to be a significant section of the population (numpties) who agree with the governments approach to road safety matters.
3) Members of the govt have practically admitted now that gatsos provide a large stream of revenue, which the govt would be unwilling to go without.
4) Poxy greens who persist in telling us that we’re killing the planet with cars. This is in spite of the fact that objectively convincing evidence has never ever been produced to support the claim.
The problem is that with road safety and the environment, science doesn’t have all the answers – it is impossible to accurately calculate risk based on road traffic statistics or climate data, because there are too many unknown, unpredictable factors which cannot be accounted for. Consequently, in the absence of conclusive scientific proof either way, people argue according to their philosophy. Many pro-motoring people represent an individualist philosophy, whilst greens argue from an egalitarian point of view and the govt has to be pragmatic in listening to the people whilst collecting taxes and cooking up statistics which claim to show that they’re making progress and their instinct is to regulate for regulations sake.
So in all, the situation is pretty intractable and until the revolution, expect things not to get dramatically better.
Time for more donuts in the company car park I think…
Like the other guys have, the ABD is pretty much our best shot.
It is very a very frustrating situation to be in - I know, I feel like the last angry man somedays..
The problem is that the poxy government has us by the short and curlies - most enthusiastic motorists are by nature of the resources required a reasonably affluent section of society, with too much to lose from straying into legally messy areas like direct action and vandalism.
It would be easier to get some leverage were it not for the following factors:
1) This fixation on the notion that our (road) safety can be measured and then managed by legal enforcement is a philosophy shared and implemented by every western & Australasian government – so it’s not like our govt. are going out on a limb.
2) There seems to be a significant section of the population (numpties) who agree with the governments approach to road safety matters.
3) Members of the govt have practically admitted now that gatsos provide a large stream of revenue, which the govt would be unwilling to go without.
4) Poxy greens who persist in telling us that we’re killing the planet with cars. This is in spite of the fact that objectively convincing evidence has never ever been produced to support the claim.
The problem is that with road safety and the environment, science doesn’t have all the answers – it is impossible to accurately calculate risk based on road traffic statistics or climate data, because there are too many unknown, unpredictable factors which cannot be accounted for. Consequently, in the absence of conclusive scientific proof either way, people argue according to their philosophy. Many pro-motoring people represent an individualist philosophy, whilst greens argue from an egalitarian point of view and the govt has to be pragmatic in listening to the people whilst collecting taxes and cooking up statistics which claim to show that they’re making progress and their instinct is to regulate for regulations sake.
So in all, the situation is pretty intractable and until the revolution, expect things not to get dramatically better.
Time for more donuts in the company car park I think…
quote:
The problem is that with road safety and the environment, science doesn’t have all the answers – it is impossible to accurately calculate risk based on road traffic statistics or climate data, because there are too many unknown, unpredictable factors which cannot be accounted for. Consequently, in the absence of conclusive scientific proof either way, people argue according to their philosophy. Many pro-motoring people represent an individualist philosophy, whilst greens argue from an egalitarian point of view and the govt has to be pragmatic in listening to the people whilst collecting taxes and cooking up statistics which claim to show that they’re making progress and their instinct is to regulate for regulations sake.
Exactly right. But governments who don't at least try and support their policies with statistics will become oppositon soon enough.
Speed limits are too generic to guarantee road safety, but they're the best option we have.
If we removed all the limits and just had a dangerous driving (or driving without due care and attention) law, how on earth would the police enforce it? Its bad enough now when cars speeding at the same rates are fined differing amounts, imagine what it would be like if the entire process was subjective - which 'speeding' would be if there were no set limit. Its not a possible solution.
And who's to say the guy driving the Cerbera at 120mph knows what he's doing anwyay?
>> Edited by spnracing on Wednesday 20th March 11:18
Peter.
I don't think most people on this site think that speed-limits are generally a bad idea. Just that they are often set at a ridiculous level.
No-one is going to object to a 30mph in a residential area or near a school. But 70mph on the M4? Ridiculous.
The problem with stupid limits is that they bring all limits into disrespect - which can't be a good thing.
Set them right and reasonable people will stick to them. Then you can catch the idiots.
IMHO. And yes. I think 120mph on a clear day with no other traffic around is perfectly OK before anyone starts...
I don't think most people on this site think that speed-limits are generally a bad idea. Just that they are often set at a ridiculous level.
No-one is going to object to a 30mph in a residential area or near a school. But 70mph on the M4? Ridiculous.
The problem with stupid limits is that they bring all limits into disrespect - which can't be a good thing.
Set them right and reasonable people will stick to them. Then you can catch the idiots.
IMHO. And yes. I think 120mph on a clear day with no other traffic around is perfectly OK before anyone starts...
______________________________________
If we removed all the limits and just had a dangerous driving (or driving without due care and attention) law, how on earth would the police enforce it? Its bad enough now when cars speeding at the same rates are fined differing amounts, imagine what it would be like if the entire process was subjective - which 'speeding' would be if there were no set limit. Its not a possible solution.
_______________________________________
What a load of codswallop!!!!
No speed limit (except sensible town limits of course) and slam HARD anyone driving dangerously, automatically charge anyone causing an accident (whether involved or not) is an option. WHY FFS should I and others be penalised just because some numptie pratt can't drive???? Nanny state gone daft.
We have this here in SW Germany, some pinko barsteward slowed the best piece of Motorway down to 120kph just because numptie shedpuller cheeseheads regularly ran into the trees. reason: they couldn't drive properly and then tried with their clockwork towncars pulling 2 tonnes of shed to drive for 8 hours non-stop and then went to sleep.
Tough Sh1t I say, charge the barstewards for delaying and endangering everyone. and then the real travellers can get on without worrying about Caravan club numpties blocking the roads....... (drive 120000kms yearly!)
Rant over........ gone for a
>> Edited by JMGS4 on Wednesday 20th March 11:35
quote:
What a load of codswallop!!!!
No speed limit and slam HARD anyone driving dangerously, automatically charge anyone causing an accident (whether involved or not) is an option. WHY FFS should I and others be penalised just because some numptie pratt can't drive????
Thought my dodgy leftie views wouldn't go down too well on here...
But seriously, its not an option. How do you police it? Have a traffic car on every road, next to every school? What defines what is dangerous and what isn't? Wouldn't it make sense to pre-classify every road in advance and set a speed at which the least capable car would still be relatively safe? Hang on - thats what we do now.
And who's to judge who is a good driver and who's not? I know a few TVR/(Ferrari) drivers that I would be most uncomfortable being a passenger with. And plenty of Vectra drivers who are considerate, respectful and safe.
You're not being penalised - the roads are there for everyone of a certain minimum ability to get from A to B. You can always go on a track day or go racing if you want to.
I do both and put up with the road system, understanding its limitations.
Yes, but those who would benefit most from further driver training are precisely those people who think they're great drivers anyway and think they don't need further tuition.
You'd never in a million years get an average or below-average driver to admit they need further training, whereas those of us who are passionate about driving are the ones who acknowledge that there is always something more to learn.
You'd never in a million years get an average or below-average driver to admit they need further training, whereas those of us who are passionate about driving are the ones who acknowledge that there is always something more to learn.
Maybe.
But most people aren't petrol heads. They view their car as a means of getting somewhere only. The driving test is already more stringent that it used to be. You can hardly expect a 65 yo grannie or 35 yo mother of three kids to go through skid pan training or 10 laps round Mallory.
But most people aren't petrol heads. They view their car as a means of getting somewhere only. The driving test is already more stringent that it used to be. You can hardly expect a 65 yo grannie or 35 yo mother of three kids to go through skid pan training or 10 laps round Mallory.
quote:
And who's to judge who is a good driver and who's not?
Well for a start, certainly not some grey camera hidden in a bush by the side of the road !!
quote:
You're not being penalised - the roads are there for everyone of a certain minimum ability to get from A to B. You can always go on a track day or go racing if you want to.
And that "certain minimum ability" is woefully low !! If improving road safety was truly the Government's aim, and I've yet to see any direct evidence of this, we'd have much tougher driving tests and pedestrians would be charged with offences such as jay-walking or for causing an accident through stupidity.
And yes we can go on trackdays or go racing, but surely the point is that it's a rather worrying state of affairs when the racetrack is an inherently safer place to drive than the public roads !! And it is, largely because you don't have pedestrians, you don't have muppets pulling out from side streets without looking, you don't get people doing their make-up or talking on mobile phones, you don't get people falling asleep, etc., etc., etc. !!!
People should *earn* the right to drive on the road, not expect it.
quote:
The driving test is already more stringent that it used to be. You can hardly expect a 65 yo grannie or 35 yo mother of three kids to go through skid pan training or 10 laps round Mallory
Is it really ?? So a multiple guess is a major road safety improvement is it ??!!
And why can't I expect a 65 year old granny or a 35 year old mother to go on a skid pan or around Mallory Park ?? Surely a basic idea of how to handle a car in difficult conditions is a pre-requisite for improving road safety ? After all, how many people have accidents that don't involve other cars simply because they didn't drive according to the prevailing conditions.
Gotta say I'd agree with Don and Steve - sensible limits reaonably applied are better than dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
Extend the driving test to cover motorways (and dual carriageways) - make it a requirement to be passed as safe for these roads (just like in motorsport - if you aint got the right licence for the race, ya dont get to drive). That'd add to the Govn'mt revenue (wouldn't they like that) create jobs (my word this is a good idea!) and perhaps change the license groups to look at vehicle sizes/performance. No licence for that type of car, no driving. It worked for bikes, it'd work for cars. I mean, pass the car driving test and your automatically approved for all sorts of vehicles, from a 50hp Mini to a 500hp Ferrari - is that sane?
Lets look at the issues sensible, without getting the "speed kills" crap involved in it - good decisions are NEVER based on emotions but thats whats dragging this one down. Informed debate is whats required - but somehow I cant see Herr Blaire going for that! Just look at the fudge over hunting and Byers and and and ARRRGHHHHHH!! ENUFF!
Extend the driving test to cover motorways (and dual carriageways) - make it a requirement to be passed as safe for these roads (just like in motorsport - if you aint got the right licence for the race, ya dont get to drive). That'd add to the Govn'mt revenue (wouldn't they like that) create jobs (my word this is a good idea!) and perhaps change the license groups to look at vehicle sizes/performance. No licence for that type of car, no driving. It worked for bikes, it'd work for cars. I mean, pass the car driving test and your automatically approved for all sorts of vehicles, from a 50hp Mini to a 500hp Ferrari - is that sane?
Lets look at the issues sensible, without getting the "speed kills" crap involved in it - good decisions are NEVER based on emotions but thats whats dragging this one down. Informed debate is whats required - but somehow I cant see Herr Blaire going for that! Just look at the fudge over hunting and Byers and and and ARRRGHHHHHH!! ENUFF!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff