Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B433 - Heavy Goods Vehicles Safety Bill

Announcements Posted on
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    That's jolly good to hear, but why's it in this bill then? You're using a bill to outline your future bills?
    I suppose so...
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure how Labour let this bill seep through the cracks as a party bill. They have enough people in the party with experience that could have given tips on the innumerate mistakes in it, and they're not just minor semantic problems.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    I'm not familiar with the haulage industry, no, and I have not taken a HGV test. Have you?

    These small costs are worth taking to improve a haulage company's reputation in business and to make sure they are meeting Health & Safety guidelines in various laws & regulations.

    What I mean by HGV by the way, is massive vehicles who clearly cannot see either side of their vehicle clearly, not agricultural vehicles as such. This is mainly affecting vehicles with blindspots.
    Not yet although I have done training and it is covered.

    Under current laws they do, you don't need to wrap people in cotton wool.

    Oh no **** sherlock. Do you not know that HGVs are required to haul various agricultural goods from the farm to a factory for instance? it is extremely expensive, most recent quote I got for half a load was £2,000 just to go half way up the country... imagine how much more it will cost when they add these extras into the price to offset losses.

    You clearly have no idea (by your own admission in fact) what you are getting yourself into and yet you want to regulate them more. This bill should not pass.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I'm not sure how Labour let this bill seep through the cracks as a party bill. They have enough people in the party with experience that could have given tips on the innumerate mistakes in it, and they're not just minor semantic problems.
    Okay, there's no need to criticise Labour on this. This is clearly my fault and my mistake for ever sending this bill to be scrutinised. Can you just drop it now?

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Not yet although I have done training and it is covered.

    Under current laws they do, you don't need to wrap people in cotton wool.

    Oh no **** sherlock. Do you not know that HGVs are required to haul various agricultural goods from the farm to a factory for instance? it is extremely expensive, most recent quote I got for half a load was £2,000 just to go half way up the country... imagine how much more it will cost when they add these extras into the price to offset losses.

    You clearly have no idea (by your own admission in fact) what you are getting yourself into and yet you want to regulate them more. This bill should not pass.
    Alright - I get the idea. A bit of support would be greatly appreciated here - there's no need to worry, I'm seriously thinking about closing this bill as you're not letting it go at all are you.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why the hell is everyone being so harsh on this bill? It's not exactly a terrible bill. It looks at HGV's, large vehicles with huge blindspots, and tries to improve their safety. It's not as if it's a total non-issue, as some of you are trying to make out, and the Libertarians opposition to any sort of regulation whatsoever is simply laughable. I don't care if it's in the company's best interest, it's in everyone else's best interest.

    It's not as expensive as some of you make out either. How much does a motion sensor in a car cost? A couple of hundred pounds at most. If ordinary people can drive around in cars with motion sensors for personal use, do you really think businesses who use the vehicle for profit can't? It won't push prices up to a ridiculously high level either, that's just scaremongering. The cost of motion sensors is a drop in the ocean compared to what these companies earn.

    For those of you complaining about the formatting of this bill, is it really such an important issue? Yes, nice formatting is preferred, but that can always be changed between readings, it's the content that is the main thing.

    All in all, is this a perfect bill? No, it isn't, but it's not a bad attempt, no matter what any of you say. I don't think this deserves so much criticism, it can be edited as we go along to take into account anything that comes up, that's why we have second and third readings. This is this member's first bill, and I think that the criticism of it is harsh and unnecessary. That's the reason why so many newer members feel put off contributing bills.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    A bit of support would be greatly appreciated here
    Well you are not going to get it from me.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Besides, a HGV coming at you at 50 mph is going to end in the same result as a car coming at you at 50mph.
    Correct, if you're not in a car yourself. Most HGVs, at any one time, are on the motorways where there are virtually no pedestrians. That's where there will be a huge difference in the amount of damage done, a HGV hitting (a) car(s), compared to a car hitting another car.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    Thank you. The formatting issues will get resolved, but it looks like everyone in the Parliament is putting up a strong argument towards this important bill so I'm not sure if I'll get the opportunity - we'll see.

    The training will most likely take place then, it will cost the company, but it is a risk that they should be willing to take.

    I'm not legislating against accidents, I'm trying to prevent accidents from happening with just simply asking drivers to use new equipment to cause less accidents on the road. It's a simple but needed bill.
    By trying to prevent accidents, you are legislating to prevent accidents and therefore legislating against accidents so I disagree with you there. Why should companies have to fork out for what central Government is forcing them to do?
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I'm not sure how Labour let this bill seep through the cracks as a party bill. They have enough people in the party with experience that could have given tips on the innumerate mistakes in it, and they're not just minor semantic problems.
    I agree. This is indicative of how far Labour has slid from its past glory (if it ever was glorious).
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Why the hell is everyone being so harsh on this bill? It's not exactly a terrible bill. It looks at HGV's, large vehicles with huge blindspots, and tries to improve their safety. It's not as if it's a total non-issue, as some of you are trying to make out, and the Libertarians opposition to any sort of regulation whatsoever is simply laughable. I don't care if it's in the company's best interest, it's in everyone else's best interest.
    Good job, Champ - I think if you read back through this thread, you won't find any Libertarian pouring piss on this bill on the grounds that "it's regulation so no." Wanna take a second read? The only two other Libers in this thread but me are questioning whether or not it'll help.

    For those of you complaining about the formatting of this bill, is it really such an important issue? Yes, nice formatting is preferred, but that can always be changed between readings, it's the content that is the main thing.
    It's more than formatting, David. It's a regulatory bill that lists regulations that haven't been written yet. That's not merely a formatting issue. Was this actually submitted via the party?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Correct, if you're not in a car yourself. Most HGVs, at any one time, are on the motorways where there are virtually no pedestrians. That's where there will be a huge difference in the amount of damage done, a HGV hitting (a) car(s), compared to a car hitting another car.
    The biggest problem with HGV's is that they cannot see behind them. The solution is not to equip them with thermal imaging cameras as suggested, as some little bleeps a second before impact is not going to make much difference when it is travelling at 50mph.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Similar amounts of damage? Are you joking?
    That was an exaggeration, yes.

    But what I meant by that is both are equally likely to be fatal if they hit a cyclist/pedestrian because they were in the drivers blind spot. Given that most HGV drivers require fairly intensive training, I see no need for this extra legislation.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I agree. This is indicative of how far Labour has slid from its past glory (if it ever was glorious).
    The Labour Party is the party of the people. Labour supports real life people - I see Tories as living the high life in fancy mansions/big houses in Putney as an example. The Labour Party is by far one of the top parties and it has been glorious in certain areas. No one is perfect and is the same in politics.

    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Good job, Champ - I think if you read back through this thread, you won't find any Libertarian pouring piss on this bill on the grounds that "it's regulation so no." Wanna take a second read? The only two other Libers in this thread but me are questioning whether or not it'll help.

    It's more than formatting, David. It's a regulatory bill that lists regulations that haven't been written yet. That's not merely a formatting issue. Was this actually submitted via the party?
    I find this insulting that you don't even think this was a proper bill submitted by the Leader of the Opposition/Labour Party. For your information, lots of TSR Labour MPs and Supporters liked my bill in the private Labour sub-forum and were constructive and helpful in making it a proper & well-thought out bill.

    I think you should seriously look at yourself in the mirror and have a reality check. Please do not criticise this bill again. I'd like to see one of your bills in the near future.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Why the hell is everyone being so harsh on this bill? It's not exactly a terrible bill. It looks at HGV's, large vehicles with huge blindspots, and tries to improve their safety. It's not as if it's a total non-issue, as some of you are trying to make out, and the Libertarians opposition to any sort of regulation whatsoever is simply laughable. I don't care if it's in the company's best interest, it's in everyone else's best interest.
    As CR said, take a look at the thread: myself, MacCuishy and CR haven't said no to this bill because its regulatory. We've said no because we question how much difference it will make. Parking sensors to stop hitting a moving cyclist/pedestrian? As well as undermining the training that HGV drivers undertake.
    It's not as expensive as some of you make out either. How much does a motion sensor in a car cost? A couple of hundred pounds at most. If ordinary people can drive around in cars with motion sensors for personal use, do you really think businesses who use the vehicle for profit can't? It won't push prices up to a ridiculously high level either, that's just scaremongering. The cost of motion sensors is a drop in the ocean compared to what these companies earn.
    How many people do you know that can afford "a couple of hundred quid" for parking sensors on their car? Government regulation may not push prices up "that much" either; but it will push prices up. And how many of the average working class families that the Labour party is supposed to represent can afford that to begin with? Let alone the struggling small business who can barely make ends meet because of the ongoing financial crisis.
    For those of you complaining about the formatting of this bill, is it really such an important issue? Yes, nice formatting is preferred, but that can always be changed between readings, it's the content that is the main thing.
    It's not vital that a bill have nice formatting, no. But it makes it a damned sight easier to read and given the experience in the MHoC that the Labour party has, I'm surprised someone didn't reformat it quickly - it only takes 5 minutes before you send it off to Metrobeans.
    All in all, is this a perfect bill? No, it isn't, but it's not a bad attempt, no matter what any of you say. I don't think this deserves so much criticism, it can be edited as we go along to take into account anything that comes up, that's why we have second and third readings. This is this member's first bill, and I think that the criticism of it is harsh and unnecessary. That's the reason why so many newer members feel put off contributing bills.
    Yes its the members first bill, but again, could the rest of the party not chipped in with a little advice? You know: explain what the regulations you're introducing are, given that it's a regulatory bill (as, again, CR pointed out); give it a little format tweak so it's a little bit easier to read; you see where I'm going with this?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    as others have said an expensive hinderance with only a marginal benefit, if it were for new vechiles it would make more sense rather than upgrading the entire fleets as they stand to, plus on top of the already sky rocketing costs for haulage firms and in the current economic times, no from me.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    The Labour Party is the party of the people. Labour supports real life people - I see Tories as living the high life in fancy mansions/big houses in Putney as an example. The Labour Party is by far one of the top parties and it has been glorious in certain areas. No one is perfect and is the same in politics.



    I find this insulting that you don't even think this was a proper bill submitted by the Leader of the Opposition/Labour Party. For your information, lots of TSR Labour MPs and Supporters liked my bill in the private Labour sub-forum and were constructive and helpful in making it a proper & well-thought out bill.

    I think you should seriously look at yourself in the mirror and have a reality check. Please do not criticise this bill again. I'd like to see one of your bills in the near future.
    You seem to be taking this awfully personally. Do you not accept the criticism? We haven't been rude, nor have we been offensive. This isn't the first bill this term to be poorly formatted, but most do not get this response because most are small, lexical things that make little difference. The fact your colleagues helped you make this bill the way it is does not, in fact, fill me with confidence given the poor state of it.

    I'm slightly confused about why you're asking not to criticse the bill. All my suggestions have been entirely legitimate ones. If you want to ignore them, be my guest - I'm not an MP so I have no vote - but I don't see why you'd defend it as being good. It's your first bill - no one thinks you're an idiot for messing it up a bit (though the fact your party threw you to the wolves is odd), but you should acknowledge its flaws rather than stamping your feet in the direction of those offering criticism.

    If you want to see some of my bills, take a look at the old Libertarian bills. I wrote half of them during a four year period.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    You seem to be taking this awfully personally. Do you not accept the criticism? We haven't been rude, nor have we been offensive. This isn't the first bill this term to be poorly formatted, but most do not get this response because most are small, lexical things that make little difference. The fact your colleagues helped you make this bill the way it is does not, in fact, fill me with confidence given the poor state of it.

    I'm slightly confused about why you're asking not to criticse the bill. All my suggestions have been entirely legitimate ones. If you want to ignore them, be my guest - I'm not an MP so I have no vote - but I don't see why you'd defend it as being good. It's your first bill - no one thinks you're an idiot for messing it up a bit (though the fact your party threw you to the wolves is odd), but you should acknowledge its flaws rather than stamping your feet in the direction of those offering criticism.

    If you want to see some of my bills, take a look at the old Libertarian bills. I wrote half of them during a four year period.
    I am taking this personally as it is my bill. I do accept some constructive criticism but not endless messages and strong use of words from some members endlessly criticising the bill. It will be good to see some of the positive things about the bill as well as the negatives. I'm more frustrated a tehFrance to be honest.

    I appreciated criticism but this has now gone far enough. All of who have said no to this have clearly stated their view and now I've heard enough. I'm all for free speech but there's too much of it now and it's starting to make myself criticise my own bill as well. I know you've got no vote, I made sure I checked before all this happened. It certainly seems that way (that people think I'm an idiot for messing it up).

    I just think now that this is the first bill anyone in this Model Parliament has seen giving regulation to something. I think that's why everyone is getting so up tight about the first regulation bill they've seen and had to opportunity to vote on. I don't think we can only write & publish non-regulation style bills in MHoC, we have to have an equal balance.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    The Labour Party is the party of the people. Labour supports real life people - I see Tories as living the high life in fancy mansions/big houses in Putney as an example.
    Don't you mean 'The Labour Party is the party that is in the pockets of Unions'? those Tories live the highlife because they earned it/have jobs.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Don't you mean 'The Labour Party is the party that is in the pockets of Unions'? those Tories live the highlife because they earned it/have jobs.
    I think you'll find that Labour listens to the Unions, the voice of the people and takes their opinions on board unlike the current Tory government.

    All of the Tories have come from privileged backgrounds and have all come out of Eton. They are not what I think of as normal people. :rolleyes:
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    They are not what I think of as normal people. :rolleyes:
    The are normal people, just because they had a better life than you doesn't make them abnormal.
Updated: April 30, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.