Disagree - what about those who do not drive, cycle etc? As others have said, road tax should be paid by whoever uses the road. If an ambulance needs to use the road, it can pay for it (which of course will be paid for indirectly through tax anyway)
Partly agree - certainly other countries have very little or no fuel duty. I would be happier if the fuel duty was actually used for some useful road-related purpose eg road safety
Disagree - a 2 litre engine may be fine in a small hatchback but in some larger vehicles, the vehicle may actually struggle if fully loaded (passengers and cargo) which IMO is more dangerous. You also run the risk of ruining smaller car companies like Lotus if no one wants to buy their car because of tax.
Agree - vehicles designed or marketed for off-road should be capable as such. I think Clarkson tested a 4x4 off roader that was crap
on the road and worse off it. The problem then becomes that they are market as SUVs or similar.
No idea about this since I got my license in 2002. I think if you learned to drive a car, that's all you should be able to drive. Anything else requires its own license/permit. Exceptions could be made for one-off use.
I think I can see where you're going with this but basically disagree. You could have a probation period after passing your test for say twelve months where you can only drive a vehicle up to 125 bhp and it must not be modified. After that, freer reign. Having said that, insurance companies already load premiums and I doubt it would reduce them. As above, 250bhp depends on the vehicle. My Golf GTI ED30 came with 230bhp as standard and a simple remap knocked it to 300bhp. There's nothing wrong with that IMO. Similarly, some cars eg Ferraris, Lambos would be banned and IMO that's just feckin' ridiculous - you may as well ban all vehicles and make everyone walk everywhere and transport all their goods in a little pull-trolley.
Agree with this. It should be quick and simple. However, the system needs improving because there are times you spot hazards long before the computer allows you to press. A mate got caught out because he identified things too early.
Depends. Logistically may be impossible. Where would the funding come from? Unlike test centres with computers for Theory/Hazards, you'd need cars. Whose cars would they be? Would it be your own? Would it have to be the test centre's because of dual controls? What about unfamiliarity? How long would the test be? It can also be manipulated ie people take a few refresher lessions, past the re-test and then lapse back into poor driving habits.
Again this comes down to £££. What would the health check include? Who would fund it? Not every condition requires DVLA notificiation or restriction. Not all GPs may be able to carry out the health checks (depending on what they involved), in which case who funds the retraining and where does the money come from?
Agree - fairly simple, and picks up a lot of things. Maybe something could be merged with the hazard perception test, so you get a suitable health check at the same time. But again, the details!
I've just looked at the German system and it only seems to benefit those who stay in one place for a long time. If you move around place to place eg every year because of work/studies, it seems like unnecessary penalisation.
Agree but how would you enforce it?
Is this just repeat occurrences of the above?
Agree - some places there are so many signs, as well as traffic, junctions - it can all be confusing if you've driven to a new place for the first time. All signs should be kept to a minimum.
In which case I'd argue to increase the speed limit given it is based on archaic rules. Vehicles are now much safer and capable of higher speeds. Lift the motorway limits to 100mph first.
Disagree - there's no reason why vehicles can't be low, especially if they have say air ride. What's your rationale for this?
All in all rusty, I'd not only disagree with you, I'd probably run you over in a low rider just to spite you.
