How many motorists think roads are not for cyclists?

Cambridge King's College

When friends and family ask me what I’m up to I tell them. If I happen to mention the creation of the iPayRoadTax campaign I get quizzical stares. That’s if I’m talking to a non-cyclist. Fellow pedallers know instantly what I mean when I say ‘road tax’: it’s an all-too-typical form of abuse lobbed at cyclists by motorists. The Mr & Mrs Motormouth video is an extreme example, but by no means unusual.

Non-cyclists think I’m bonkers. Why would I devote so much time and trouble on what they consider such a non-issue? None of my friends and family have so far argued that roads are paid for by motorists, so cyclists have lesser rights; but on a recent press trip I got a very different reaction. I was pinned to the dinner table by a journalist who felt cyclists shouldn’t get in her way when she exits her farm access road. The county council had painted some white lines on a footpath that crosses her access road and, for her, this was deemed far too much provision for cyclists.

Now, her views might have been the red wine talking but what excuse does Peter Burkinshaw have? In 2009 he went on record saying motorists pay for roads and that cyclists are ‘freeloaders’. He’s a member of the UK Independence Party so perhaps it’s not surprising he has some odd views on life but it would be interesting to find out exactly what non-cyclists think about us.

Peter Zanzottera, senior consultant at transport consultancy Steer Davies Gleave, told the Scottish Parliament’s Transport Committee, that “People love cycling but hate cyclists.” How big a percentage of motorists think roads are paid for by ‘road tax’ and so cyclists shouldn’t be allowed on roads, or certainly shouldn’t be treated as equals?

I’d like to think it was only a small percentage and when a non-cyclist says they pay ‘road tax’ they don’t really think an annual payment of Vehicle Excise Duty funds the British road network.

But it could be a bigger percentage and it’s research I’d like to see carried out. If even only a small fraction of motorists think like Peter Burkinshaw and Mr & Mrs Motormouth, that’s got to be a worry. We ride our bikes next to a certain percentage of drivers who believe we have no right to be there. How many ‘accidents’ have been caused by motorists who feel we’re interlopers, and that might is right?

ukip transport

It’s worthwhile repeating Burkinshaw’s claims because they could be more mainstream than most UKIP utterances. As a thick-skinned member of UKIP, Burkinshaw is going to voice what others would be worried about saying in public.

He was standing for election to Cambridgeshire County Council in June 2009. The Cambridge Cycling Campaign asked all candidates for their views on cycling. Burkinshaw, with no chance of being elected, gave his honest views, not something politicians with any chance of power are likely to do.

“Provision for cyclists is already adequate. Please remember that motorists are the people who pay to use the roads whereas cyclists are ‘freeloaders’. They are entitled to use the roads but not disproportionately. If everyone cycled, as you suggest, there would be no roads to ride on.”

Shocking. Daft. Misguided. But very possibly a prevalent view among some motorists.

Bloody cyclists. Don't pay road tax blah de blah

Thankfully, UKIP has no chance in the national election but it’s possible that many of the party’s transport policies would be supported by a motoring populace. I listed these policies on the Quickrelease.tv blog and Helen Pidd of The Guardian reported on them, too.

UKIP starts by saying it “supports pedal cycles as a healthy means of personal transport,” but quickly reveals their policies were written from a windscreen perspective. Cyclists should be made to pay for “a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected.” Locking-up bikes would also need paying for: “we support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.”

UKIP believes that “cycling on safe cycle routes, lanes, tracks and trails should be actively encouraged, particularly as a leisure pursuit,” but urban cycling needs to be reined in. UKIP “believes off road dedicated lanes are preferable to a confusing maze of cycle lanes on unsuitable or dangerous roads, which is problematic for cyclists as well as other road users.”

And here’s the kicker, here’s the policy that I fear far too many motorists would applaud:

“Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic.”

Clearly, to UKIP, cars are traffic, bikes aren’t. Cyclists, remember, are “freeloaders.”

Who Pays For Britain's Roads?

iPayRoadTax-com 14

NEWSLETTER
Want to be kept up to speed with iPayRoadTax? Use the form below to get the iPayRoadTax emailed newsletter (this won’t hit your inbox a thousand times a year, and your details will not leave the building):

  • Anonymous

    As I have stated elsewhere roads are not for cars, but are for people however they choose to travel. The act of driving a car confers on the driver no more right to the road than that of any other road user. Why can’t driver get the hang of this, it really is very simple.

  • Anonymous

    Have just sent an email to BBC Look East over that video peice. Even though I’m not from the area I couldnt let it rest it was just so wrong, and had I been the shop owner I might have told the corrospondent to get out. rnrnHe’s also made a spurious statement over helmets, and we know how contentious that little issue is.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the tip-off. Just watched it. Will place on site ASAP.rnrnShocking ignorance: the guy was knocked off for goodness sake!

  • Anonymous

    Just seen a story on BBC Look East about the ‘rage’ directed to cyclists as we don’t pay tax. It appears many motorists use the ‘you don’t pay tax’ argument to justify dangerous driving. They appear to reserve a right to kill you as they’ve paid u00a3120 or so, forgetting entirely that many cyclists also drive and tax cars…as I do too. Can I kill a motorist then if I pay u00a3120? Which department would that be?nnSo, if we paid road tax this would entitle us to our share of the road wouldn’t it? This means I can sit in the middle of the road for as long as I like…as I’ve paid my tax I too can claim ownership of the entire transport network and aggressively protect it if anyone has the cheek to challenge my authority? nnLet the traffic build up behind me for miles – heck, they got what they wanted, I’ve paid ‘Cycle Tax’ for my ‘bit’ of the road and fed up with using the smashed up bit at the side next to the pavement I’m now staking a claim on the middle tarmac, the smooth bit. Why not…it’s mine now right?nnDangerous cyclists…good one. Sure, some cyclists are idiots and deserve to be fined, but do motorists really want to start the numbers game? Do they really want to examine the 1000′s every year killed and maimed by cars? And why would a cyclist be on the pavement anyway to even hit a pedestrian?nnSome meathead in his car has just shouted ‘get off the road’ as he drove by with his hand on the horn. Go figure, motorists of course are blameless, just another ‘pain in the ass’ cyclist. nnHow many cyclists do we see on Police Camera Action tearing the motorway up? How many cyclists caused a death last year compared to the frankly obscene number of fatalities resulting from, alcohol abuse, drug taking, talking on the phone, doing their hair, etc etc. nnI firmly believe in the 1% argument…always have. 99% of people, regardless of being motorists, cyclists, roller bladers (it just doesn’t matter) are pretty good and reasonable. It’s the 1% who will kill you and drive off. nnIt’s the 1% who think their licence (a privilege after all and not a right) is their excuse to do as they see fit. It’s the 1% who go to the pub, have too many and drive home putting you and your family at risk because they own the road and what right do you have to be in my way? It’s the 1% who need to be removed from the roads and given bus passes, cyclists or motorists, doesn’t matter. nnRoad safety needs a momumentous kick up the backside. Those who can’t take it seriously shouldn’t be allowed to drive, it’s not a video game. You can’t just push restart when you’ve wiped out two pedestrians as you were busy on the phone. nnThe minority of frankly childish motorists who adopt the ‘my road’ mentality really need to wake up. Its time a driving licence meant something again. Don’t know why we bother testing people, anyone can fluke skilled driving in a 35 minute test. If traffic is busy most examinees hardly drive far enough to even show they have any skill or regard for what’s going on in the real world. nnAs for cyclists taking tests I’ll take one. How many motorists would put their money where there mouth is and would submit to a re-test? Thought so. nnThe entire situation is ridiculous and something has to change.

  • Anonymous

    I started a survey monkey poll about 2 months ago on similar matters but dropped it in the end as I couldnt create a poll that wasnt full of loaded questions. You also need to exclude cyclists and theres no garantee some wont hijack it, LOL!rnrnOne day I’ll get me act together

  • Anonymous

    Nothing wrong with being a petrolhead imo. Its just keeping a sense of reason and respect about it that matters :-)

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for conducting those polls! A bigger ‘official’ one is on the rncards at some point…

  • Anonymous

    What UKIP fails to understand is that their policy of removing us from the EU would destroy our ability to buy oil. How then, would they fuel their cars? They will have also destroyed the means to the only form of free transport other than pedestrianisation, effectively shooting themselves in the foot.rnrnI’ve done straw polls at work of noncyclists and yes, you’re right. The majority I spoke to seem to beleive the “road tax” and “inteloper” myths. rnrnI listened to the Jeremy Vine show on the iPlayer and felt like giving Vine a slap. Matthew Wright is the same. Self confessed cyclist with a subservient attitude to his own rights. rnrnThis whole “militant” thing has only raised its head because people feel threatened on both sides of the fence, and we allow the motormouths (no punn intended) to shout all over reason.

  • Anonymous

    Surely, given the amount of excise duty I pay every year on wine, beer, and spirits, the government has an obligation to build better bigger pubs and wine bars (hic!)rnrnRide safe (2 cars 5 bikes, passive placid pacific driver, militant cyclist)rnrnGreg

  • Anonymous

    Phew, this is good as I have three cars and only two bikes… I was keeping the petrol head thing quiet!

  • Anonymous

    It’s perfectly acceptable to be both a militant cyclist and a rnpetrolhead. Both are transport modes that have their good points and rnbad points.rnrnIf more motorists were also cyclists – at least for shorter journeys – rnthere would be more respect from and for both sides.rnrnThis is why cycling is so much more civilised in the Netherlands: it’s rnnot just the infrastructure, it’s the attitude from drivers.rnrnWe all need to get along and the ‘road tax’ argument is a false one, rnbut believed by an awful lot of motorists.

  • Anonymous

    I think I’m turning into a militant cyclist too. What’s perhaps slightly unusual is I’m also an obsessive petrolhead. nnI had my first serious argument with a driver last night. He was basically annoyed that a cyclist had the temerity to stick to their own right of way when he tried to pull out in front of me, but it descended into an utterly nonsensical rant, including the usual road tax argument.nnEven before I found this excellent site and realised that in fact we do, I never had a problem (being a driver for a second) with cyclists not paying ‘road tax’. However to make things simple for our friend in the van last night – because he undoubtedly was – I pointed out that I tax and insure three cars. I realise this is irrelevant, but I thought it might cause him to rethink his claim. Nope. The guy just ignored it and kept hurling obscenities at me. I said it again and still he kept babbling.nnThe moral of the story, I reckon, is this: If you ever feel guilty for riding defensively, don’t. The ones who get annoyed aren’t normal motorists getting on with their day, they’re single-figure IQ morons who aren’t worth arguing with anyway.n

  • Anonymous

    Logic? Where?

  • Anonymous

    ‘Green’ vehicles – such a electric cars – are roughly the same rndimensions as regular cars. So, while emissions are moved elsewhere, rnthe box-on-wheels remains.rnrnElectric vehicles will not cure congestion, just make it quieter when rnqueueing.

  • Anonymous

    I experienced a member of my extended family complaining about cyclists not paying road tax this weekend, and it made me consider similar ridiculous accusations.nnIt’s like blaming top rate tax payers for the war in Iraq, as “they paid for it”, or claiming that non-smokers shouldn’t be able to use the NHS, as smokers pay for it. Both are ridiculous, stupid arguments, but demonstrate that you wouldn’t apply the logic of “no pay, no say” to any other issue relating to taxation.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand the obsession with “getting people out of their cars”. There’s plenty of room in this country for a road network that can cope with the demand, and with the inevitable arrival of more “green” vehicles in the coming years, then environmental argument is shot down in flames. Personal transport, be it by bicycle, car or motorbike, is a wonderful thing and we should embrace it not discourage it.

  • Anonymous

    You’re right, transport is not seen as a worthy topic of discussion by rnpoliticians.rnrnThey know that radical measures are needed but are gagged from saying rnso and this gagging makes them forget about the problem, hoping it’ll rnsomehow disappear.rnrnBuilding more roads isn’t the answer. An awful lot more should be done rnto get more intelligent use out of the existing road infrastructure rnand – critically – getting more people out of cars in the first place. rnNot just on to bikes and buses but not making unnecessary car rnjourneys, esp short ones.

  • Anonymous

    It’s an uphill struggle, for sure.rnrnMilitant? Me? Um, yes, definitely.

  • Anonymous

    I’m a motorist and a cyclist. I hate it when motorists say “cyclists don’t pay ‘road tax’ so shouldn’t be on the roast” but have always felt that generally cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than 40 tonne trucks. Cycling on pavements should be allowed, but with pedestrian priority – and there should be more “split” path/cycle lanes (by “more” I mean it should be the norm, ie on probably about 75%+ of pavements). There should be more cycle lanes in roads, too, but often there just isn’t room and painting a thin white line doesn’t automagically make it safer. nnPlease also don’t forget that although “road tax” isn’t ring fenced to pay for roads, the number of vehicles on the road has increased vastly over the years yet the various governments have failed to invest the increased income sufficiently in expanding the road – and cycle – network accordingly. Of late, the “green” argument is used against new development, yet with the progress of electric and alternative fuelled vehicles we’re going to find 20 years down the line there’s no argument against vehicle transport and we don’t have an infrastructure to cope – which will be bad news for motorists and cyclists alike. nnNone of the political parties currently address these issues. Bad times.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately as soon as you show any knowledge of the law and taxation as a cyclist you are labelled as ‘militant’, this has been used by work colleagues who have expressed anti-cyclist views to instantly dismiss my opinion once I proved I was better informed.nnThis makes the ongoing discussion difficult, although maybe I shouldn’t have ended the argument with the phrase ‘I know I earn more than you therefore I pay for more road than you…’

  • http://twitter.com/gbozward Jack Knife Lorry

    Unfortunately as soon as you show any knowledge of the law and taxation as a cyclist you are labelled as 'militant', this has been used by work colleagues who have expressed anti-cyclist views to instantly dismiss my opinion once I proved I was better informed.

    This makes the ongoing discussion difficult, although maybe I shouldn't have ended the argument with the phrase 'I know I earn more than you therefore I pay for more road than you…'

  • Steve R

    I'm a motorist and a cyclist. I hate it when motorists say “cyclists don't pay 'road tax' so shouldn't be on the roast” but have always felt that generally cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than 40 tonne trucks. Cycling on pavements should be allowed, but with pedestrian priority – and there should be more “split” path/cycle lanes (by “more” I mean it should be the norm, ie on probably about 75%+ of pavements). There should be more cycle lanes in roads, too, but often there just isn't room and painting a thin white line doesn't automagically make it safer.

    Please also don't forget that although “road tax” isn't ring fenced to pay for roads, the number of vehicles on the road has increased vastly over the years yet the various governments have failed to invest the increased income sufficiently in expanding the road – and cycle – network accordingly. Of late, the “green” argument is used against new development, yet with the progress of electric and alternative fuelled vehicles we're going to find 20 years down the line there's no argument against vehicle transport and we don't have an infrastructure to cope – which will be bad news for motorists and cyclists alike.

    None of the political parties currently address these issues. Bad times.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    It's an uphill struggle, for sure.

    Militant? Me? Um, yes, definitely.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    You're right, transport is not seen as a worthy topic of discussion by
    politicians.

    They know that radical measures are needed but are gagged from saying
    so and this gagging makes them forget about the problem, hoping it'll
    somehow disappear.

    Building more roads isn't the answer. An awful lot more should be done
    to get more intelligent use out of the existing road infrastructure
    and – critically – getting more people out of cars in the first place.
    Not just on to bikes and buses but not making unnecessary car
    journeys, esp short ones.

  • Steve R

    I don't understand the obsession with “getting people out of their cars”. There's plenty of room in this country for a road network that can cope with the demand, and with the inevitable arrival of more “green” vehicles in the coming years, then environmental argument is shot down in flames. Personal transport, be it by bicycle, car or motorbike, is a wonderful thing and we should embrace it not discourage it.

  • http://twitter.com/graemeshaw graemeshaw

    I experienced a member of my extended family complaining about cyclists not paying road tax this weekend, and it made me consider similar ridiculous accusations.

    It's like blaming top rate tax payers for the war in Iraq, as “they paid for it”, or claiming that non-smokers shouldn't be able to use the NHS, as smokers pay for it. Both are ridiculous, stupid arguments, but demonstrate that you wouldn't apply the logic of “no pay, no say” to any other issue relating to taxation.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    'Green' vehicles – such a electric cars – are roughly the same
    dimensions as regular cars. So, while emissions are moved elsewhere,
    the box-on-wheels remains.

    Electric vehicles will not cure congestion, just make it quieter when
    queueing.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    Logic? Where?

  • http://chriscarblog.blogspot.com/ Chris Pickering

    I think I'm turning into a militant cyclist too. What's perhaps slightly unusual is I'm also an obsessive petrolhead.

    I had my first serious argument with a driver last night. He was basically annoyed that a cyclist had the temerity to stick to their own right of way when he tried to pull out in front of me, but it descended into an utterly nonsensical rant, including the usual road tax argument.

    Even before I found this excellent site and realised that in fact we do, I never had a problem (being a driver for a second) with cyclists not paying 'road tax'. However to make things simple for our friend in the van last night – because he undoubtedly was – I pointed out that I tax and insure three cars. I realise this is irrelevant, but I thought it might cause him to rethink his claim. Nope. The guy just ignored it and kept hurling obscenities at me. I said it again and still he kept babbling.

    The moral of the story, I reckon, is this: If you ever feel guilty for riding defensively, don't. The ones who get annoyed aren't normal motorists getting on with their day, they're single-figure IQ morons who aren't worth arguing with anyway.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    It's perfectly acceptable to be both a militant cyclist and a
    petrolhead. Both are transport modes that have their good points and
    bad points.

    If more motorists were also cyclists – at least for shorter journeys –
    there would be more respect from and for both sides.

    This is why cycling is so much more civilised in the Netherlands: it's
    not just the infrastructure, it's the attitude from drivers.

    We all need to get along and the 'road tax' argument is a false one,
    but believed by an awful lot of motorists.

  • http://twitter.com/gbozward Jack Knife Lorry

    Phew, this is good as I have three cars and only two bikes… I was keeping the petrol head thing quiet!

  • http://chriscarblog.blogspot.com/ Chris Pickering

    I think I’m turning into a millitant cyclist too. What’s perhaps slightly unusual is I’m also an obsessive petrolhead.

    I had my first serious argument with a driver last night. He was basically annoyed that a cyclist had the temerity to stick to their own right of way when he tried to pull out in front of me, but it descended into an utterly nonsensical rant, including the usual road tax argument.

    Even before I found this excellent site and realised that in fact we do, I never had a problem (being a driver for a second) with cyclists not paying ‘road tax’. However to make things simple for our friend in the van last night – because he undoubtedly was – I pointed out that I tax and insure three cars. I realise this is irrelevant, but I thought it might cause him to rethink his claim. Nope. The guy just ignored it and kept hurling obscenities at me. I said it again and still he kept babbling.

    The moral of the story, I reckon, is this: If you ever feel guilty for riding defensively, don’t. The ones who get annoyed aren’t normal motorists getting on with their day, they’re single-figure IQ morons who aren’t worth arguing with anyway.

    Chris

  • http://twitter.com/Greg_Collins Greg Collins

    Surely, given the amount of excise duty I pay every year on wine, beer, and spirits, the government has an obligation to build better bigger pubs and wine bars (hic!)

    Ride safe (2 cars 5 bikes, passive placid pacific driver, militant cyclist)

    Greg

  • admin

    It’s perfectly acceptable to be both a militant cyclist and a petrolhead. Both are transport modes that have their good points and bad points.

    If more motorists were also cyclists – at least for shorter journeys – there would be more respect from and for both sides.

    This is why cycling is so much more civilised in the Netherlands: it’s not just the infrastructure, it’s the attitude from drivers.

    We all need to get along and the ‘road tax’ argument is a false one, but believed by an awful lot of motorists.

  • Downfader

    What UKIP fails to understand is that their policy of removing us from the EU would destroy our ability to buy oil. How then, would they fuel their cars? They will have also destroyed the means to the only form of free transport other than pedestrianisation, effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

    I've done straw polls at work of noncyclists and yes, you're right. The majority I spoke to seem to beleive the “road tax” and “inteloper” myths.

    I listened to the Jeremy Vine show on the iPlayer and felt like giving Vine a slap. Matthew Wright is the same. Self confessed cyclist with a subservient attitude to his own rights.

    This whole “militant” thing has only raised its head because people feel threatened on both sides of the fence, and we allow the motormouths (no punn intended) to shout all over reason.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    Thanks for conducting those polls! A bigger 'official' one is on the
    cards at some point…

  • Downfader

    Nothing wrong with being a petrolhead imo. Its just keeping a sense of reason and respect about it that matters :-)

  • Downfader

    I started a survey monkey poll about 2 months ago on similar matters but dropped it in the end as I couldnt create a poll that wasnt full of loaded questions. You also need to exclude cyclists and theres no garantee some wont hijack it, LOL!

    One day I'll get me act together

  • Pingback: The organisations which get ‘road tax’ wrong and why this matters – I Pay Road Tax

  • Pingback: Kylie Batt

  • Cole Stone

    Just seen a story on BBC Look East about the 'rage' directed to cyclists as we don't pay tax. It appears many motorists use the 'you don't pay tax' argument to justify dangerous driving. They appear to reserve a right to kill you as they've paid £120 or so, forgetting entirely that many cyclists also drive and tax cars…as I do too. Can I kill a motorist then if I pay £120? Which department would that be?

    So, if we paid road tax this would entitle us to our share of the road wouldn't it? This means I can sit in the middle of the road for as long as I like…as I've paid my tax I too can claim ownership of the entire transport network and aggressively protect it if anyone has the cheek to challenge my authority?

    Let the traffic build up behind me for miles – heck, they got what they wanted, I've paid 'Cycle Tax' for my 'bit' of the road and fed up with using the smashed up bit at the side next to the pavement I'm now staking a claim on the middle tarmac, the smooth bit. Why not…it's mine now right?

    Dangerous cyclists…good one. Sure, some cyclists are idiots and deserve to be fined, but do motorists really want to start the numbers game? Do they really want to examine the 1000's every year killed and maimed by cars? And why would a cyclist be on the pavement anyway to even hit a pedestrian?

    Some meathead in his car has just shouted 'get off the road' as he drove by with his hand on the horn. Go figure, motorists of course are blameless, just another 'pain in the ass' cyclist.

    How many cyclists do we see on Police Camera Action tearing the motorway up? How many cyclists caused a death last year compared to the frankly obscene number of fatalities resulting from, alcohol abuse, drug taking, talking on the phone, doing their hair, etc etc.

    I firmly believe in the 1% argument…always have. 99% of people, regardless of being motorists, cyclists, roller bladers (it just doesn't matter) are pretty good and reasonable. It's the 1% who will kill you and drive off.

    It's the 1% who think their licence (a privilege after all and not a right) is their excuse to do as they see fit. It's the 1% who go to the pub, have too many and drive home putting you and your family at risk because they own the road and what right do you have to be in my way? It's the 1% who need to be removed from the roads and given bus passes, cyclists or motorists, doesn't matter.

    Road safety needs a momumentous kick up the backside. Those who can't take it seriously shouldn't be allowed to drive, it's not a video game. You can't just push restart when you've wiped out two pedestrians as you were busy on the phone.

    The minority of frankly childish motorists who adopt the 'my road' mentality really need to wake up. Its time a driving licence meant something again. Don't know why we bother testing people, anyone can fluke skilled driving in a 35 minute test. If traffic is busy most examinees hardly drive far enough to even show they have any skill or regard for what's going on in the real world.

    As for cyclists taking tests I'll take one. How many motorists would put their money where there mouth is and would submit to a re-test? Thought so.

    The entire situation is ridiculous and something has to change.

  • http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid

    Thanks for the tip-off. Just watched it. Will place on site ASAP.

    Shocking ignorance: the guy was knocked off for goodness sake!

  • Downfader

    Have just sent an email to BBC Look East over that video peice. Even though I'm not from the area I couldnt let it rest it was just so wrong, and had I been the shop owner I might have told the corrospondent to get out.

    He's also made a spurious statement over helmets, and we know how contentious that little issue is.

  • http://twitter.com/kim_harding Kim Harding

    As I have stated elsewhere roads are not for cars, but are for people however they choose to travel. The act of driving a car confers on the driver no more right to the road than that of any other road user. Why can't driver get the hang of this, it really is very simple.

  • http://twitter.com/kim_harding Kim Harding

    As I have stated elsewhere roads are not for cars, but are for people however they choose to travel. The act of driving a car confers on the driver no more right to the road than that of any other road user. Why can’t driver get the hang of this, it really is very simple.

  • jim

    The point is Steve, that on average people are depending more and more on cars, and with an ever growing population, this is having a noticeable effect on congestion. At the same time, although a completely different issue the average populace is also becoming lazier and less active, and as a result more obese.

    The whole point is that yes, Motorcycles, lorries and cars are highly useful, and an industry in their own right. They should be embraced and enjoyed indeed, but they are quite frankly not necessary for any journey you are capable of making on foot or on bicycle, unless carrying a lot of goods of course. The whole country would benefit from a change in attitude towards their use of motor vehicles… In many European countries bicycles and trams are the main mode of transport within a city, and it works very well indeed

    It would be nice to see some slimmer people around on average, and it would also be nice to actually enjoy driving when I need to, rather than crawling along in a long slow moving queue, which seems to be more and more the common thing. Surely, the more people choosing the cycle, or walk small journeys the better for other motorists in terms of actual driving and also parking.