your freedom

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 01 Jul 2010, 13:48

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk

chance for us to suggest what laws and "red tape" the new government could get rid of.

I've done

"ease planning restrictions for renewable energy projects"

a little bit provocative but I think its worth making the point

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 01 Jul 2010, 14:50

Interesting they use the words 'remove or change', not 'introduce'. OK, it's supposed to be about freedom but this is usually brought about by means of defining limits.

I probably won't be able to contribute*, not residing within your venerable shores, but I'd like to see something similar in place o'er here.

*Edit: hmmm....all you have to do is enter username, e-mail, password and the first part of your postcode, which means you could live anywhere on earth and 'have your say'.

We had 'Your Country, Your Call', a website for submitting ideas on getting the economy moving and creating jobs (many ideas wanted to get people working for the dole, disregarding the fact that they're on the dole because there's no work) and the ideas are being sifted through, currently, for two winners.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 01 Jul 2010, 18:56

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose .....

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 01 Jul 2010, 20:23

ye can take ma deep fried mars bar, but ye cannae take ma freedom!

Post by **clv101** » 01 Jul 2010, 21:33

Here's an idea that could do with a debate:

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing ... it-is-safe

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing ... r-to-do-so

Post by **clv101** » 01 Jul 2010, 21:46

I am a daily city cyclist and also a driver. As a driver I wouldn't dream of driving through a red light, even just the red light of a pedestrian crossing when there's no pedestrian in sight.

However, on a bike it's different. A bike going through a red light - when it's clear - is similar to a pedestrian crossing the road at a random point when it's clear. Stopping cyclists from passing red lights when it's clear is similar to the US jaywalking situation when you can only walk across a road at designated crossings.

Cyclists should at the very least be allowed to filter left on a red light, and I would argue they should ignore all lights - just like pedestrians can cross the road at any point.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 01 Jul 2010, 22:08

clv101 wrote:I am a daily city cyclist and also a driver. As a driver I wouldn't dream of driving through a red light, even just the red light of a pedestrian crossing when there's no pedestrian in sight.

However, on a bike it's different. A bike going through a red light - when it's clear - is similar to a pedestrian crossing the road at a random point when it's clear. Stopping cyclists from passing red lights when it's clear is similar to the US jaywalking situation when you can only walk across a road at designated crossings.

Cyclists should at the very least be allowed to filter left on a red light, and I would argue they should ignore all lights - just like pedestrians can cross the road at any point.

Why?

If you're a road user then you should adhere to the rules of the road.

If you were to get knocked down whilst turning left at a red light, I'm sure you'd be quick enough to blame the law abiding motorist in question.

Traffic regulations are there for a reason. What gives you the divine right to break such laws?

nnnnnn · Post by **nnnnnn** » 01 Jul 2010, 22:40

I never understood the need to jump red lights they should hardly slow any cyclist down anyway.

I suppose you could argue that red lights only exist because of cars, if cars hadn't had been invented then neither would red lights, since cyclists pose virtually no danger to anyone but them-selves.

I don't see any need for the change of law though, red lights aren't a problem.

RogueMale · Post by **RogueMale** » 01 Jul 2010, 23:08

I'm quite happy to wait at red lights I know are going to change, but sometimes they get stuck. One particular set I often have to deal with regularly (and dangerous to go through when red) requires me either to wait indefinitely for a car to trigger it, or mount the pavement to ride past it.

Returning to the more general topic of our freedom, two changes I'd make off the top of my head would be to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland on land access and wheel clamping.

Post by **clv101** » 02 Jul 2010, 08:02

Aurora wrote: Why?

If you're a road user then you should adhere to the rules of the road.

If you were to get knocked down whilst turning left at a red light, I'm sure you'd be quick enough to blame the law abiding motorist in question.

Traffic regulations are there for a reason. What gives you the divine right to break such laws?

I used to share your view, exactly. Until I started cycling miles through a city every day.

What do you make of my analogy of pedestrians crossing the road? Should pedestrians only be allowed to cross at designated crossings or should they be allowed to cross wherever it's safe to do so?

If a bike approaches a red light, presumably it's okay to get off and walk past the red light, then get on again? If so, why not ride?

The blanket "it's the law" argument clearly isn't the whole story as it doesn't recognise the difference between bikes and cars. There is a difference (especially when filtering left), the question is how to recognise that difference in the law.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Jul 2010, 08:26

clv101 wrote:
Aurora wrote: Why?

If you're a road user then you should adhere to the rules of the road.

If you were to get knocked down whilst turning left at a red light, I'm sure you'd be quick enough to blame the law abiding motorist in question.

Traffic regulations are there for a reason. What gives you the divine right to break such laws?
I used to share your view, exactly. Until I started cycling miles through a city every day.

What do you make of my analogy of pedestrians crossing the road? Should pedestrians only be allowed to cross at designated crossings or should they be allowed to cross wherever it's safe to do so?

If a bike approaches a red light, presumably it's okay to get off and walk past the red light, then get on again? If so, why not ride?

The blanket "it's the law" argument clearly isn't the whole story as it doesn't recognise the difference between bikes and cars. There is a difference (especially when filtering left), the question is how to recognise that difference in the law.

Point taken.

However, in the 90's I lived in the US for a few years and personally witnessed many accidents (1 fatal) where drivers turning right on a red (legal in most states I believe) had not been cautious enough and had been 'T-boned' at the junction.

Car? Bicycle? What's the difference? One careless mistake could result in yet another fatality. I rest my case.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 02 Jul 2010, 08:42

Define "if it is safe" and "when clear to do so".

OK, let cyclists jump red lights but let the law also say that the cyclist is then culpable for any ensuing accident, injury or death.

In fact, as a general principle, I'd like the emphasis of the law changed from "you are not allowed to do this" to "do it, but if something bad happens, something very bad will happen to your life".

Example: using mobile phones whilst driving - let people use their mobiles whilst driving, but if they have or cause an accident and are found to have been using the phone at the time, then ban them from driving for, say, 10 years and make them (at least in part) culpable for the accident and any injuries or deaths. Would you use your mobile at the wheel if you knew that those were, without question of leniency, the potential consequences? Your choice!

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 02 Jul 2010, 09:55

foodimista wrote:Example: using mobile phones whilst driving - let people use their mobiles whilst driving, but if they have or cause an accident and are found to have been using the phone at the time, then ban them from driving for, say, 10 years and make them (at least in part) culpable for the accident and any injuries or deaths. Would you use your mobile at the wheel if you knew that those were, without question of leniency, the potential consequences? Your choice!

But no one thinks it will happen to them. They can drive safely while using a phone. It's everyone else who uses one who's a bad driver.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 02 Jul 2010, 10:15

JohnB wrote:But no one thinks it will happen to them. They can drive safely while using a phone. It's everyone else who uses one who's a bad driver.

Damn right. That's one thing that would drive me to rage when I walked to work in London (among other things such as drivers, including bus drivers, blatantly driving through red lights at Aldwych). It got to the point where I would turn into a ranty guy and actually shout at drivers I saw using a mobe. I stopped doing it when a scary-looking guy, with his eyes bulging with rage, stopped his car and I thought I was going to get a kicking.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 02 Jul 2010, 11:50

I often do the 'thumb and finger' symbol then draw the finger across the throat at these stupids.

The trouble is, the mobile users are in another world and only the drivers who are not on the phone see me do it! LOL

Just look at the eyes of these drivers on the phone - they're usually glassy.