The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich motorist
can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose to
issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the local
High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
party leaders.

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
news:9q01
> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich motorist
> can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose to
> issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the
local
> High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> party leaders.
>As much as I feel that most speed limits and cameras are no in place for
revenue purposes rather than safety, this is even more crazy and it is
effectively implying that the speed limits are not for safety at all and
they do not really matter, but they will just take some money off you
anyway. We need a review of what speed limits we have and they should be set
purely by people responsible for safety who do not have any incentive to use
cameras to generate revenue. I'm sure there are already people in the
department of transport, universities and other organisations who would be
able to get together to do that.

There should also be the right to challenge a limit if you get caught and to
question if it is the correct limit for the road if the limit is set in a
dubious manner, like 40mph on a dual carriageway.

Mikael

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
news:9q01
> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich motorist
> can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose to
> issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the
local
> High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> party leaders.
>
So far the Tories have come up with a lot of ill-thought out policies,
designed to win votes, but absolutely useless to the country:

-raise the motorway limit to 80 (very stupid idea)
-abolish the M4 bus lane (very stupid idea)
-Abolish London congestion charging (very stupid idea)

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating> wrote in message
news:01_5
>
> "Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
> news:9q01
> > The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of
only
> > fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich
motorist
> > can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose
to
> > issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the
> local
> > High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> > Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> > party leaders.
> >
> >
>
> So far the Tories have come up with a lot of ill-thought out policies,
> designed to win votes, but absolutely useless to the country:
>
> -raise the motorway limit to 80 (very stupid idea)
> -abolish the M4 bus lane (very stupid idea)

I think these should go and agree with them. 80mph at least is as safe on
motorways now as 70mph was when the law was made. I think it should be set
to be 90 actually.

The M4 bus lane is a very inefficient use of road space and should go for
that reason alone. Everyday there are huge jams making 1000s of people
suffer so a few busses and taxis can save some time. If the route is that
important, build another road!

> -Abolish London congestion charging (very stupid idea)

Londoners specifically voted for this, so if they want it they should be
allowed to have it

Jon Porter <jon.porter2> wrote in message
news:9q01

> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich motorist
> can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose to
> issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas,

....*and* points for exceeding the speed limit in such locations - at least,
according to Ceefax (which isn't usually known to add unnecessary detail).

> presumably the local
> High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> party leaders.

The whole point of fixed-penalties (when they were introduced) was that the
penalty (once paid) was the absolute end of the matter. Win/win - quick
disposal of the matter (originally from £2 a pop) for the "offender" and the
police and courts' time not being taken up with trivia (I think the idea was
that the police were supposed to concentrate on crime and on genuine
road-safety measures).

When FPs were extended to speeding, the same system should have been used -
with the police retaining the option - just as with unlawful parking - to
*prosecute* instead of issuing a FP and with the *court* then having the
power to endorse the licence or even to disqualify (for something which
properly merited it). The situation which exists at the moment, of the
*police* (or still worse, a local authority, via a machine, of all things)
effectively having the power to disqualify should be anathema to anyone who
holds to basic concepts of justice.

*Automatic* penalty points (with the implied threat that it will be even
worse for the victim if he/she has the temerity to fight the matter in
court) are an abomination. When it comes to the potentially very severe
penalty of being disqualified from driving, the rule should be the same as
it is for criminal matters: "innocent unless and until *proven*guilty". And
only then when judged by a court (and with the opportunity to speak in one's
own defence).

This Conservative initiative (if it is ever enacted) will be no soft
option - it will merely restore the position to what it ought to have been
all along. The curent system is unjustifiably harsh - correcting that to a
neutral position is long overdue.

Mikael Armstrong <Mikael> wrote...

> "Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating> wrote:

[ ... ]

> > -abolish the M4 bus lane (very stupid idea)

> I think these should go and agree with them. 80mph at least is as safe on
> motorways now as 70mph was when the law was made. I think it should be set
> to be 90 actually.

If the M4 Prime Minister's Lane is such a good thing, perhaps there ought to
be one for his sole use on every road - and perhaps (this time) such
measures ought to be included in the Labour Manifesto.

The official "justification" for the M4 Elbowing Legitimate Road Users Out
Of The Way Lane is that funnelling the traffic down to two lanes at the
Hayes/Feltham junction prevents delays at the start of the Chiswick Flyover
(where there are only two lanes anyway).

*If* that is the case, and *if* it helps rather than hindering, then the
entire ELRUOOTW Lane should be *closed off to all traffic*.

> The M4 bus lane is a very inefficient use of road space and should go for
> that reason alone. Everyday there are huge jams making 1000s of people
> suffer so a few busses and taxis can save some time. If the route is that
> important, build another road!

....or the Chiswick Flyover should be widened (which would solve the
funnelling problem the apologists whinge about).

> > -Abolish London congestion charging (very stupid idea)

> Londoners specifically voted for this, so if they want it they should be
> allowed to have it

AIUI, "Londoners" (however defined) most definitely did NOT vote for it.

And its abolition is a matter for the Mayoral candidates (pending an attack
of common sense in Parliament when the whole idea of a class system on the
public highway is realised for the outrage that it is).

Though I have to add that I cannot agree that people who live outside London
should have no say on its governance.

London isn't like Middlesborough or Lampeter or Kirkby or Auchtermuchty.

London affects and controls everyone's lives.

Often, one has to go there for one reason or another - even though one
doesn't live or work there.

"JNugent" <JNugent> wrote in message
news:1e01
> Mikael Armstrong <Mikael> wrote...
>
> > "Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > -abolish the M4 bus lane (very stupid idea)
>
> > I think these should go and agree with them. 80mph at least is as safe
on
> > motorways now as 70mph was when the law was made. I think it should be
set
> > to be 90 actually.
>
> If the M4 Prime Minister's Lane is such a good thing, perhaps there ought
to
> be one for his sole use on every road - and perhaps (this time) such
> measures ought to be included in the Labour Manifesto.
>
> The official "justification" for the M4 Elbowing Legitimate Road Users Out
> Of The Way Lane is that funnelling the traffic down to two lanes at the
> Hayes/Feltham junction prevents delays at the start of the Chiswick
Flyover
> (where there are only two lanes anyway).
>
> *If* that is the case, and *if* it helps rather than hindering, then the
> entire ELRUOOTW Lane should be *closed off to all traffic*.
>
> > The M4 bus lane is a very inefficient use of road space and should go
for
> > that reason alone. Everyday there are huge jams making 1000s of people
> > suffer so a few busses and taxis can save some time. If the route is
that
> > important, build another road!
>
> ...or the Chiswick Flyover should be widened (which would solve the
> funnelling problem the apologists whinge about).
>
> > > -Abolish London congestion charging (very stupid idea)
>
> > Londoners specifically voted for this, so if they want it they should be
> > allowed to have it
>
> AIUI, "Londoners" (however defined) most definitely did NOT vote for it.

The people eligible to vote for the London mayor voted for Ken who had made
it clear he was going to implment the system though. I do however personally
think it is a silly scheme
>
> And its abolition is a matter for the Mayoral candidates (pending an
attack
> of common sense in Parliament when the whole idea of a class system on the
> public highway is realised for the outrage that it is).
>
> Though I have to add that I cannot agree that people who live outside
London
> should have no say on its governance.

I would agree with that, and is perhaps a different topic to be addressed.
>
> London isn't like Middlesborough or Lampeter or Kirkby or Auchtermuchty.
>
> London affects and controls everyone's lives.
>
> Often, one has to go there for one reason or another - even though one
> doesn't live or work there.

I agree and would like to see policy making there made on the basis of
thinking about everyone's needs too.

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating> wrote in message
news:01_5
>
> "Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
> news:9q01
> > The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of
only
> > fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points.

And at the same time saying "people think its about raising money for the
government".
Note the weasel words, the tories don't think that, and don't want to open
up a debate on that front.
Even from their worst figures (and never mind operating costs etc.), its
equivalent to 0.05p fuel duty.

> So far the Tories have come up with a lot of ill-thought out policies,
> designed to win votes, but absolutely useless to the country:
>
> -raise the motorway limit to 80 (very stupid idea)

Note that when asked about this they said they'd have GATSOs to enforce
that.

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
news:9q01
> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points.

Just heard them on the 2pm news.

very VERY "think about the children".

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message news:9q01
> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points.

Leading to the obvious question: if driving at that speed isn't
dangerous enough to require points, why should people be fined for it?

> Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> party leaders.

Unfortunately you may be right: the Tories could have an obvious
vote-winner if they just promised to eliminate all of Labor's anti-car
policies, but I think they're too scared of the Greenists to do that.

Mark

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote in message
news:9q01
> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich motorist
> can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose to
> issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the
local
> High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> party leaders.

I've heard that EEC are grumbling about our 2 piece driving license... isn't
inline with the rest of Europe etc etc. Is it possible that "If" the Tories
get in, and "If" they are pressured by Europe to drop the points system,
they can claim some free publicity???

r <mail(NoSpam)> wrote...

> "Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote:

> > The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of
only
> > fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points. So the rich
motorist
> > can speed all he likes without fear of losing his licence. They propose
to
> > issue heavier fines near schools and pedestrian areas, presumably the
> > local High Street at 3am is okay unless there's a nightclub nearby?
> > Somehow I think this initiative will be as short lived as their last two
> > party leaders.

> I've heard that EEC are grumbling about our 2 piece driving license...
isn't
> inline with the rest of Europe etc etc. Is it possible that "If" the
Tories
> get in, and "If" they are pressured by Europe to drop the points system,
> they can claim some free publicity???

Not likely, I'm afraid.

The points system (ie, in principle - not necessarily imposed by camera) is
in fact spreading throughout the EU.

Friends in Italy tell me that it is a hot debating topic -
points/endorsements wre apparently unknown there before this last summer.

"Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote

> The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of only
> fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points.


Doesn`t quite outweigh the disadvantages of having three million on the dole
and interest rates at 16% though.......

"Knight of the Road" <look> wrote in message
news:1462
>>
> "Jon Porter" <jon.porter2> wrote
>
> > The Tories are now trying to court popularity by floating the idea of
only
> > fining motorists for speeding and not issuing points.
>> Doesn`t quite outweigh the disadvantages of having three million on the
dole
> and interest rates at 16% though.......
>
We would still have 3 million on the dole, but instead labour have created
loads of new government jobs, most of which we could do without and now
these people are employed! What we need is more enterprise and business
creating jobs in our economy, rather than massaging the figures with a
montain of debt. Anyway, the interest rate was around 7 or 8% when the
tories left office, so it was not as bad as you are suggesting.
[..]

"Mikael Armstrong" <Mikael

> wrote Anyway, the interest rate was around 7 or 8% when the
> tories left office, so it was not as bad as you are suggesting.


Yes, but it was 16% when they were "in office" wasn`t it?