Rob Lane
|
| posted on 10/3/03 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
URGENT - New Speed Limit at 40mph proposed
Dear All,
It's urgent that we all respond to this before to-morrows Bill. If not we will find nearly every decent road will have a blanket 40mph speed
limit.
Ben Lovejoy posted this on ringers....
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse the off-topic and UK-only post, but I've only just found out
about this, so rallying opposition to it is urgent ...
I wouldn't accuse the Government of trying to sneak this through on
the quiet, as we all know they are honourable men, but on Tuesday
Parliament is set to debate the Railways and Transport Safety Bill.
Nothing in there to concern road-users, right? Well, except they've
tacked on a small amendment. This amendment would establish a "rural
road hierarchy". This is something the Govt has proposed before, with
roads defined as 'country lanes' having a national speed limit of
40mph. This would mean a ban for doing 67mph along them. They backed
off at the time, but it is now being sneaked thr- I mean, efficiently
tacked onto the back on an entirely unrelat- That is, closely related
bill on Tuesday.
If you would like to let your MP know how you would like him to vote
on this bill, you can do so via:
www.faxyourmp.com
If your MP is Labour, you may also care to *politely* know your
thoughts on this kind of ploy.
Just stick in your postcode, it will tell you who your MP is and
automatically address a fax to them. Type the text of your fax, hit
send, get an email confirmation, click the link and it's done.
It has a safe Privacy policy and will not reuse your info.
If you wish to read the new Bill being proposed it's http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmbills/040/amend/30306m03.htm.
Read further down it is section NC21 near the end.
I've sent off my fax
Rob Lane
www.robs7.com
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
 posted on 10/3/03 at 10:21 AM |
|
|
Rural road
Any road not marked with a white line or an urban road or motorway. Eeek. 
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 10/3/03 at 11:22 AM |
|
|
i cant get thought the link...... but OUCH!!!! thats gonna hurt.
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 10/3/03 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
Link
The link has been truncated and needs the extra .03.htm to be part of address.
If it's the 'fax your mp' then I'm not sure why you can't get through.
It takes a while to realise that what is proposed is a blanket 40mph limit on nearly all country roads.
Enjoyment of a 7 type is becoming near impossible!!
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 10/3/03 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
Rural Road
I stated this incorrectly.
Rural Road - Any road not marked with a white line or classified as such. (Many good roads are classed as this!)
Does NOT apply to urban roads or motorways.
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 10/3/03 at 11:51 AM |
|
|
Fax
It would appear that 'Faxyourmp' is down at the moment.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 11/3/03 at 09:10 AM |
|
|
although having all country roads as 40 mph would be a bad thing, if the info in this thread is correct its for roads without white lines?
These tend to be the real crappy ones with hardly width for 2 cars.......most lanes in northants always have centre white lines.....
this might not be as bad as it seems...
atb
steve
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 11/3/03 at 04:09 PM |
|
|
You've got to be joking.
Around here nearly all the roads are 8m plus wide and arrow straight, without white lines!! I've just returned in tin top from one of my favourite
30 mile Locost journeys, i was amazed to find it was on good open roads but not one with a white line to be seen!
There's many roads in Lincs, Yorks, Derbys, Notts etc that are exactly the same. Some of the best Peak roads are unmarked!
No, one of the many problems should this Bill get through (now seems unlikely) is that many councils will quickly re-classify many roads as rural or
quiet lanes, even with white lines and a current 60mph limit.
That way without any fuss, at a single stroke they slap a blanket speed limit on.
It now seems unlikely that it will get through. It is an opposition amendment to a Safety Bill and is sponsored by 4 Tories and 2 Lib Dem.
Surprisingly, it seems the government are against it!!
personally I wouldn't trust any of them. Say one thing, do another.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 11/3/03 at 06:43 PM |
|
|
Speed limits
I replied to this on Yahoo group. I don't think it is all bad, as a cyclist having been scared several times on local rural roads by people in Disco
and Range Rovers rushing to get to their stables. It isn't going to get through but it might not be too bad if it gets implemented in a diluted form.
The schools round here have a 20mph limit while the crossing patrols are active, why not put time slots on speed limits like on parking.
yours, Pete.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 11/3/03 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
as a cyclist
We could have better roads if we made Pete pay some road tax when he's riding down the middle of the road wobbling from side to side
Cheers
Chris
(and some insurance)
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 11/3/03 at 11:31 PM |
|
|
there are several roads in northants, with white lines, and 60mph that its nuts to do more than 40 on but they are 60 roads.
I think the important thing is to classify a road for its safe speed, and not just on the basis of white lines or a blanket overall speed, be it 40 or
60.
we get another 16 speed cams in northants in a month. What joy.
Its the seven roaving laser vans that really hurt tho.
atb
steve
|
|
|
DEAN C.
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 12:12 AM |
|
|
I think some of you are missing Robs point.
If we all lie down and let our rights be taken away from us,we'll all be driving foam filled safety bubbles on computerised speed restricted lanes
for fun.
Dont bother building your own cars then !
Wake up!
Dean.........
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 08:48 AM |
|
|
I have just a few points to add...
I agree that we ought to tell our MPs what we think.
This is an amendment to the bill, and most amendments don't get passed without major support and a lot of canvassing.
Most authorities involved with lawmaking hate anything that's ambiguous and which is very likely to end up with disputes in court. The decision as
to whether a road has white lines, and what sort of lines it has, is written down in heaps of regulations for way back. What happens if someone is
taken to court for exceeding the speed limit on a road with no white line, and the defence is that the local authorities have neglected to paint the
line? It could get very messy!
David
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 09:20 AM |
|
|
As it stood, the amendment would automatically class any road without a white line as a rural road. This with no further intervention.
Dean has hit my point fair and square.
I'm not normally one to do anything like this, but this time it was time to stand up and be counted. Too often we as a nation are an apathetic
bunch, we stand by and watch our MPs vote on our behalf, only to find it probably serves their own interest. We then go on to meekly obey any law
passed down and cough up any payments so demanded.
I've only known two laws to be really scrapped by popular demand, rather than amended, one was the Poll Tax, the other was the CB ban. (Even that was
modified)
Many years ago, when a referendum was called for on the EC, it was pointed out that we elected the MPs to represent the constituency but we then had
no real control over what they did. They were then free to make whatever decision on our behalf they wanted, including turning down a referendum. This
would have given the power back to the populace, not what they want.
Hell, that sounds very Trotskyite. I'm not! just making a point.
The controls and laws now being placed on cars and drivers are becoming Draconian. We are fast becoming the outlaws of society, even though 8 in 10
own a car!
Speed limits set, when 80% of drivers are caught exceeding them, could also go to show that the limit was set too low, not just that the drivers were
breaking a law.
This government has clearly stated its anti car sentiments and is going on to pass through many quiet laws that affect motorists.
I don't want to go on a soapbox but this has opened my eyes somewhat to what is going on against what is basically a bunch of law abiding
citizens.
One more to prove my point, have you seen the Police Reform Act 2002 now in reading?
A uniformed PC has the right to confiscate your car if it causes an annoyance or is shown to be driven in an annoying or dangerous manner!!
Grannies who now complain about your noisy exhaust can have your car confiscated by a uniformed officer.
This actual amendment was put in to allow the police to ban 'cruise' and boy racers. Something they have tried and failed already, after
confiscating 25 cars in the South West the police immediately lost a test case and were ordered to return the cars to the cruisers.
I must go and lie down and continue with the tablets
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
Here is the excerpt from the Bill, incidently this is the Bill that also contains the Anti-Social behavoir clause that the TV are going on about at
the moment.
-------
Seizure of motor vehicles
59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor
vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for
believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or
is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a
motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor
vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is
a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a
similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling
house.
60 Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to-
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision-
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance
with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for
its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination-
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle
seized under section 59.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations
shall not be liable to pay it if-
(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by
the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
(4) In this section-
"local authority"-
(a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or
Transport for London; and
(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 59.
----------------
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
From what I can see, the proposal about confiscating vehicles would never be passed, either that or it wouldn't be used in the way you imagine. As
far as controlling cruisers, it wouldn't work, they'd be far better off convicting them for actual crimes (speeding, no tax, no insurance,
vandalism, dangerous driving, theft....). What would happen if they did try to enforce it would be that they'd take someones car who would promptly
sue the police for loss of livelihood, and (quite rightly) win when the court decided that having a loud stereo on at 9:00pm on a saturday doesn't
constitute a public nuisance.
Kingr
|
|
|
Rob Lane
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
The Bill is actually in parliament today and is a government backed Bill which has full support.
As regards confiscating vehicles etc. as I say they have already tried. If you believe for one minute they do not pursue all ways to get the 'Max
Power' young lads then you are mistaken. It is not mainstream news but if you read any of the mags, Revs etc. then it's a constant issue.
My son is 18 and a new driver with a tarted up Sciecento, fairly innocuous, no power but pretty. He's been the subject of at least 10 pullovers to
check documents. So much so he only carries photocopies as his originals are now dog eared from all the handling.
His girlfriend is local bobbies daughter and he's been told that traffic are going out of their way to pull any modded car or one with a young
driver!
I've been the subject of a noise complaint within village when I visited a shop. One of the ladies in shop complained about the exhaust noise! This
from a normally driven 7 at slow pace. The exhaust has been measured at 92db at 4000rpm by scrutineers for competition, so is much quieter when going
slow in village.
Under the above Bill if she complained to Police I would be warned. If I didn't change exhaust or she complained again I could have 7 confiscated!
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
I don't see that they could do that, the SVA confirms that the vehicle is suitable for use on the highways of Britain in all respects. If it passes
the SVA (which it does by a long stretch, then you've got every right to drive it where you want, when you want, it might not be very sociable, but
it's certainly not illegal. There seems to be a lot of sad old biddies with nothing better to do other than complain about other people or campaign
for slower speed limits. Before I had my push bike stolen, I had some doddery old idiot tell me that it was illegal to stand with it on the
pavement.
Kingr
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
i have been done 5 or six times in my life for speeding - once at 102 mph in a montego 1.6 which is faster than they built em to go!
The point here is that speeding in the wrong place IS dangerous and I am against the excesses of the nanny state. But to assume that slowing down SOME
60 mph roads is wrong in all cases isnt sensible.
There is a timid looking corner I pass every day on a 60 thats no problem at 60. Its a lefty with a blind exit - looks like nothing.
About a year ago, I went around it in my 318I and got into a big tank slapper with a string of cars coming the other way. I was luucky it sorted
itself out.
Since then I have seen six cars come a cropper - two badly damaged. One was today.
If there was a 40 section on that road I could understand why. But then a locoster on unfamiliar territory might not, and get broadsided.
I think sensible application of limits is the thing.
atb
steve
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 08:17 PM |
|
|
when I was 18 i was pulled over in a triumph herald for driving too slow and too close to the side of the road. I hadnt long passed my test.
That was in 1977. Things havnt really changed.....
atb
steve
|
|
|
Viper
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 09:15 PM |
|
|
when I was 18 i was pulled over in a triumph herald for driving too slow and too close to the side of the road. I hadnt long passed my test.
i though that was called kerb crawling
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 10:33 PM |
|
|
actually, it was at a place called cockfosters in north london, so that makes it sound worse....
this is 1977 im talking about, they didnt kerb crawl then. We wore wite suits and did exagerated movements pointing at the ceiling.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 12/3/03 at 11:47 PM |
|
|
What's all this about?
We wore white suits and did exagerated movements pointing at the ceiling.
Was that to bump up the price of the decorating job then.
If the police pulled any cars round here with young drivers they could halve the local burglary figures. They think the tax disc is a modification if
they change the date on it. Don't put the number on it at the post office cos I want to use it in more than one car.
yours, Pete.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
mdc124
|
| posted on 14/3/03 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
what happened then?
|
|
|
DEAN C.
|
| posted on 15/3/03 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
Could this be Mr Gusterson finally coming out of the closet?
White suits! Kerb crawling and is a tank slapper something to do with Big girls or is this just my sad imagination as well?
Only joking Stephen, you can keep your white suit if you need to .
Dean........
|
|
|
