FAX YOUR MP TODAY
Discussion
FYI: our lovely MP's are Tuesday about to RUIN our rural roads for fun....and
create yet another useless government agency.
I never get involved in this stuff but I'll be d*mned if I'm paying for it,
nor am I willing to get a ban on rural roads.
Go to the following URL to let them have it. I've copied my letter to my local
MP below...you just need your postcode ! Or create your own ;>
www.faxyourmp.com/index.php3
I am writing you regarding the Tuesday debate in Parliament on the Railways
and Transport Safety Bill.
if you are unfamiliar with these amendments please refer to this webpage link
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmbills/040/amend/30306m03.htm. The amendment is in Section NC21.
In a nutshell the amendment proposes to impose blanket speed limits on all roads based upon a very broad set of criteria which appear to take no account of local road and traffic conditions. I am referring particularly to the rural and single carriageway references.
As I'm sure you are aware, local councils already have the power to impose speed limits on sections of road where they deem it to be necessary.
Whilst I do not have a problem with speed limits being imposed where there are good safety reasons for doing so, this kind of knee-jerk reaction is an unnecessary and draconian measure.
It also strikes me that this amendment has been 'tacked' onto the end of a bill to which it has only a limited relation (from the title it is a Railways bill, not a Roads one), purely so that it can be passed through Parliament without the level of debate appropriate to such a wide ranging and draconian measure.
There's several hidden laws being passed inside of this Bill.
It creates a Rural Roads Agency, and establishes a nationwide 40 Mph speed
limit on these rural roads.
My objections are several to this item:
1: It was tried, and FAILED in Parliament before, to create a Rural Roads
Agency, this is the job of (2) and we don't need yet another bill to validate
this.
2: Our local councils are already paid to take care of rural roads, we can not
afford another road agency and the subsequent buracracy it will become.
3: Rural roads have less than .05 % of all road incidents. Less that 1 % of
that .05 %, according to the ABD are speed related. Thus, with police
overtaxed to a non amusing level for all involved, the notion of speed
restrictions is the Highway Code law. Let those roads be as they are.
Please DO NOT allow these hidden parts of the bill to go forward. Recall that
Hillingdon is already raising our poll tax # 414 this year, and that we've
paid our road use tax.
Please get this sorted and removed, I suspect your peers may well not be aware
of these last minute additions.
Kind Regards,
create yet another useless government agency.
I never get involved in this stuff but I'll be d*mned if I'm paying for it,
nor am I willing to get a ban on rural roads.
Go to the following URL to let them have it. I've copied my letter to my local
MP below...you just need your postcode ! Or create your own ;>
www.faxyourmp.com/index.php3
I am writing you regarding the Tuesday debate in Parliament on the Railways
and Transport Safety Bill.
if you are unfamiliar with these amendments please refer to this webpage link
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmbills/040/amend/30306m03.htm. The amendment is in Section NC21.
In a nutshell the amendment proposes to impose blanket speed limits on all roads based upon a very broad set of criteria which appear to take no account of local road and traffic conditions. I am referring particularly to the rural and single carriageway references.
As I'm sure you are aware, local councils already have the power to impose speed limits on sections of road where they deem it to be necessary.
Whilst I do not have a problem with speed limits being imposed where there are good safety reasons for doing so, this kind of knee-jerk reaction is an unnecessary and draconian measure.
It also strikes me that this amendment has been 'tacked' onto the end of a bill to which it has only a limited relation (from the title it is a Railways bill, not a Roads one), purely so that it can be passed through Parliament without the level of debate appropriate to such a wide ranging and draconian measure.
There's several hidden laws being passed inside of this Bill.
It creates a Rural Roads Agency, and establishes a nationwide 40 Mph speed
limit on these rural roads.
My objections are several to this item:
1: It was tried, and FAILED in Parliament before, to create a Rural Roads
Agency, this is the job of (2) and we don't need yet another bill to validate
this.
2: Our local councils are already paid to take care of rural roads, we can not
afford another road agency and the subsequent buracracy it will become.
3: Rural roads have less than .05 % of all road incidents. Less that 1 % of
that .05 %, according to the ABD are speed related. Thus, with police
overtaxed to a non amusing level for all involved, the notion of speed
restrictions is the Highway Code law. Let those roads be as they are.
Please DO NOT allow these hidden parts of the bill to go forward. Recall that
Hillingdon is already raising our poll tax # 414 this year, and that we've
paid our road use tax.
Please get this sorted and removed, I suspect your peers may well not be aware
of these last minute additions.
Kind Regards,
So could someone enlighten me as to he problem here..
I'm fine with:
(a) 20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as Quiet Lanes under the Transport Act 2000;
I'm also fine with:
(b) 30 mph for rural roads passing through villages;
This:
(c) 40 mph for rural roads which have been classified as Country Lanes;
..seems sensible when you consider "a Country Lane is any road which is primarily used for local access, where there is no white centre line, and which has been designated as such by the local transport authority."
This:
(d) 50 mph for poor quality single carriageways;
..seems again fairly straightforward.. if the road is of poor quality then tearing round at 60 isn't a particularly bright idea.
and
(e) 60 mph for high quality single carriageways; and
(f) 70 mph for dual carriageway roads.
Is what we have now...
Basically, anyone who breaks the speed limit will continue to do so, and if this lot stops the w
rs from tearing through my village at 50mph then I'm all for it.
I'm aware that ideally people should learn to drive with consideration and thought rather than having the arbitary laws enforced to keep them within sensible speeds, however realistaclly as theres no IQ test associated with the driving test it aint gonna happen..
Gets on flameproof clothing and awaits
Matt.
:bringitonthen:
I'm fine with:
(a) 20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as Quiet Lanes under the Transport Act 2000;
I'm also fine with:
(b) 30 mph for rural roads passing through villages;
This:
(c) 40 mph for rural roads which have been classified as Country Lanes;
..seems sensible when you consider "a Country Lane is any road which is primarily used for local access, where there is no white centre line, and which has been designated as such by the local transport authority."
This:
(d) 50 mph for poor quality single carriageways;
..seems again fairly straightforward.. if the road is of poor quality then tearing round at 60 isn't a particularly bright idea.
and
(e) 60 mph for high quality single carriageways; and
(f) 70 mph for dual carriageway roads.
Is what we have now...
Basically, anyone who breaks the speed limit will continue to do so, and if this lot stops the w
rs from tearing through my village at 50mph then I'm all for it. I'm aware that ideally people should learn to drive with consideration and thought rather than having the arbitary laws enforced to keep them within sensible speeds, however realistaclly as theres no IQ test associated with the driving test it aint gonna happen..
Gets on flameproof clothing and awaits
Matt.
:bringitonthen:
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff