Forum Topic

What will the cycling lobby make of this?

Proposal to increase custodial sentences for cyclists who kill pedestrians.Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face tougher sentences under a planned new law for England, Scotland and Wales.The move proposed by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps will close a loophole which means they can only currently be jailed for two years.He said it will "impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care".Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.Death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years.The government launched a review into whether an equivalent offence to causing death by dangerous driving was needed for cyclists in 2017.It followed a case where a cyclist was convicted of the 19th Century offence of "wanton or furious driving".Mr Shapps said a "selfish minority" of cyclists believe they are "immune" to red lights."We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety," he wrote in the Daily Mail."Relatives of victims have waited too long for this straightforward measure."Ministers are said to be seeking a "balance" to "encourage cycling... but at the same time ensure that pedestrians are protected from irresponsible cycling behaviour".Under the proposal, a new law of causing death by dangerous cycling would be added to the Transport Bill due before Parliament in the autumn.The Department for Transport said it was "exploring changes to allow dangerous cyclists to be prosecuted more easily and delivering more continuous and direct cycling routes in towns and cities which are physically separated from pedestrians and motor traffic".

Simon Hayes ● 1131d152 Comments

The Range Rover that crashed was an SVR version capable of 176 mph.Range Rovers used to be a comfortable semi agricultural vehicle.  Sorry, but even as a dyed-in-the-wool petrolhead nobody needs a 176 mph two-and-a-half tonne metal box to commute around London. Absolutely bloody madness.

N V Brooks ● 1112d

Oh dear. Touched a nerve clearly.But you have to admit that there’s a strain of cycling zealots who do enjoy anything that portrays car drivers in a bad light.And frankly, having been branded a potential murderer, polluter, etc, etc, by your brethren I don’t really think you or they have the moral high ground.

Simon Hayes ● 1113d

I don't know if I am one of the "anti car zealots " you describe but I take exception to being said to "revell in someone's death.It's ironical that you opened a thread regarding Grant Shapps throwing a piece of red meat to the readers of the Daily Mail about speeding cyclists and then we have this atrocious accident.As someone who has held a clean licence for fifty years and has also been a cyclist for all that time I don't need insults from a keyboard warrior. 00

David Burke ● 1113d

I wonder why the anti car zealots are revelling in this person’s death? No doubt they have all the facts to hand.Speeding and bad driving is punishable, and rightly so. But this incident has resulted in the ultimate penalty for the driver. Perhaps leave it at that, eh?

Simon Hayes ● 1113d

A top of the range car with a 20 year old driver.Early hours of the morning ( unlikely to be working)I suspect alcohol or substances involved

Peter Yale ● 1113d

Just patently stupid that any road vehicle can exceed the national speed limit byc.70% if the quoted speed is accurate. Technology exists to limit speed and will be mandatory from 2024, the issue is that the on-board recognition cameras which enable this are far from 100% accurate.  Even the most accurate SPECS or GATSO enforcement camer would not have stopped such attrocious driving and the tragic death is the direct result.

N V Brooks ● 1114d

According to reports the car flew off the A40 at 120mph! Not much to identify looking at the mangled wreckage laying on the track.

David Burke ● 1114d

No need, they seriously injure themselves (& even worse hurt or kill others)There are laws, cameras, rules etc that will be enforced.This is due to vehicle registration plates, license etc

Peter Yale ● 1114d

I wonder what we should do to people who drive their Range Rovers off the A40 at 100mph....

Kevin Wilson ● 1114d

Ben. You would be certified if there was a doctor available. Perhaps kerpniff the roads as you are probably a hazard to other road users.

Simon Hayes ● 1119d

Ben go back to sleep.Simon is referring to the past, when you could drive for fun, should you require.Those days are over because of all the restrictions etc.Hopefully soon coming to the cycling mafia

Peter Yale ● 1120d

> driving for fun concept. What that means is taking the car out for a drive. It was what older generations did, usually on a Sunday. Drive about with no particular destination in mind. Well blow me down! Simon agrees with Ben and disagrees with Peter. Whatever next? Peter thinks that nobody drives for fun, but Peter does. Who is right? Simon, you need to go to the barber pdq.

Ben Owen ● 1120d

Oh Dear, looks like the wheels are gonna come off their bicycles .............😁

Rosco White ● 1120d

Excellent, well put Mr Hayes , my fumbled attempt failed miserably to put across these points.Excellent discussion today 17/08/22 on LBC.Proposal  to register cyclists, finally bring them into line with other road users.Equality

Peter Yale ● 1120d

Paul, Ben.You are both weirdos. You simply can’t understand that you are in a small minority of fanatics. Simply stating something about motor transport doesn’t make it true, and then insist that everyone should cycle.As has been pointed out to you before Paul, the problem in London is too many people. This generates traffic of al types because those people need access to services and goods. But you can’t comprehend that fact.We don’t need more cycle lanes unless it becomes compulsory to use them. Otherwise they are a waste of space. But you don’t want to be made to use them do you? You also don’t want to improve people’s cycling competence and road awareness. As you often stare it’s people who cause accidents. That applies to cyclists as well.You don’t understand the driving for fun concept either. What that means is taking the car out for a drive. It was what older generations did, usually on a Sunday. Drive about with no particular destination in mind. That’s not what driving tow swimming pool/shop/Richmond Park is. In those instances it’s driving as a means of transport for a particular PURPOSE. If that purpose happens to be pleasurable then that’s coincidental. The driving itself may, in fact, not be fun. And the underlying concept is that driving is done because it’s either the only mode of transport available (as you said) or the one that’s most convenient. Otherwise, you could decide not to make that trip.And Ben. You really do need some professional help.

Simon Hayes ● 1120d

Of course people have to use a car sometimes. I'm not saying they shouldn't if they have to, never have, nobody is really. You yourself on here have said fewer cars would be nice, I think so too, so does Simon Hayes and Nigel Brooks.There's lots that can be done to help people NOT have to use a car, including protected cycle tracks so those that fear riding bikes on a road can feel they can. Fewer car trips, but people use a car when they really need to.Win win.

Paul James ● 1121d

I know of no one who jumps in a car & drives around for the hell of it.For fun!!People drive for a number of reasons, too numerous to list

Peter Yale ● 1121d

Correct paul. Sorry Ben or whoever.Swimming, cinema, football shopping is fun.Driving to these activities  or wherever, is perfectly  legal so long has you have insurance, mot, tax etc.Absolutely not 1 single law to prevent anyone doing so, for convenience or any number of reasons.So no1 drives for fun

Peter Yale ● 1121d

Silly old Peter. He still thinks that if you are NOT shopping, going swimming, heading for the cinema, visiting family and friends and whatever other leisure activity you can think of but ARE STILL DRIVING then that's not driving for fun!

Ben Owen ● 1121d

Ben/paul sadiq, Frankly Bizarre (whoever that is).Correct, it’s NOT driving for fun. Maybe for you , there was an alternative means. However for some, most ,or a lot  of people,there is NOT.That’s why you are rightly labelled a hypocrite, you chose to drive when you COULD & ABLE  to use alternative means, yet berate motorists & cars in every breath. Pure hypocrisy.Yes there are car meets & shows, conventions etc.So  Same across ANY walk of life

Peter Yale ● 1121d

Peter doesn't think driving to a SWIMMING POOL TO GO ON THE WATER SLIDES is driving for fun... nor driving to the cinema, or to pub for Sunday Lunch. (Except if I were to do these drives I suspect)I mean I don't know what films he drives to watch and maybe he drives to the swimming pool to pull hair out of the filters, but to say such driving isn't for fun is frankly, bizarre.

Paul James ● 1121d

Preview MessagePlease review your post. If everything is OK, click Submit below. Otherwise,click the Back button on your browser to make corrections.Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply Message:I have found the perfect FB group for you, Peter. It is for people who like to drive, meet up with fellow gas heads and have fun doing so.  Here's the link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/335268296489364/?ref=shareIf the link doesn't work copy and paste into your browser. I would be keen to know how you are planning to stop people driving for fun?Forum Home

Ben Owen ● 1121d

No idea what your link is, can’t get on it.No, it wouldn’t be bad if there were less vehicles.No one drives for fun, jumps in their car & drives up & down A40.People need cars for 1001 reasons.You don’t want lovey dovey cycle wines living in cuckoo land, dictating & trying to take over road space.Ltns too, CAUSED congestion & pollution (ask your mate sadiq james)& the general public wanted them moved. Rightly so

Peter Yale ● 1121d

In your dreams, Peter. It wouldn't be terrible if you were right; some traffic would disappear from our roads. You should take those rose tinted glasses off. Can you explain what the clubs listed here do? https://www.silverstone.co.uk/events/the-classic/car-clubs/list-registered-clubs

Ben Owen ● 1121d

Dear Ben, cuckoo cuckoo.The days of people just jumping in a car & driving nowhere are gone.Cost of fuel, speed cameras  for a start.People  do so for many, many reasons.To carry goods, shopping for example.Old & infirm. Public transport not up to scratch.General convenience & any number of reasons.Get over it & don’t forget your meds

Peter Yale ● 1121d

Dreamer, Peter. When people go out for a Sunday Drive it is because they enjoy it.  I am sure you are disappointed to learn that people drive for fun.

Ben Owen ● 1121d

YES,

Peter Yale ● 1122d

Are you still going to insist nobody drives for fun?

Paul James ● 1122d

It’s ok you said all I needed to hear.Job done👍

Peter Yale ● 1122d

It absolutely wasn't a necessity was it really. Driving to the swimming pool? no, we could have chosen not to go.WE drove for fun, as do people that drive to restaurants, the shops to buy some socks, the cinema etc...

Paul James ● 1122d

Not disputing swimming etc is fun,But the driving , as you finally admit is a necessity at times, for me, others AND you.Yep we can do without cycle lanes, was fine before.Otherwise contribute, license, registration etc etc

Peter Yale ● 1122d

(thankfully the council is listening to them though, and throwing their feedback in the bin, and we'll soon have a shiny cycle lane to ride along at least until dormers wells lane)

Paul James ● 1122d

Driving to a swimming pool with water slides is not driving for fun? You've got a very bizzare definition of fun!When we go to local pools I'd never drive, we get the bus. We did try and cycle once to Dormers Wells, but it was a nightmare riding up past the hospital and iron bridge, and Dormers Wells lane itself is no place for kids on bikes really.But yourself, Nasty Nigel there and Simon Hates (see I can do name calling as well!) don't want cycle lanes anywhere, so that's not going to change is it.

Paul James ● 1122d

Bloody hell, knock me down with a feather.So you DO drive., finally an admittance.Say again no one drives for fun, your just like the rest of us- useless or non existent public transport, ease of transport (carting kids, towels, floats) generally quicker & easier.EXACTLY same as us, except we don’t hold blinkered, hypocritical constant anti car rhetoric.All that cobblers/pish/boll***s you been pouring out, finally got the truth.I rest my case

Peter Yale ● 1122d

The last time I drove (two weeks ago) it was to take some kids to the swimming pool.I did check for a bus but there was no way of getting there via public transport at all (we were out in the sticks).So we drove there.So was that driving for fun Peter? I think it was. But you insist nobody drives for fun, which again, I'll repeat, is total and utter b****s. :)

Paul James ● 1122d

ben owen/paul sadiq james.Are you real, seem to live in a fantasy world.FYI I find Mr Brooks funny, when he deliberately intends to be.Passing his driving test makes him a hypocrite??????What the......  people do it as a necessity. He cycled as well, doesn’t berate motorists at every breath.You & sadiq james are the hypocrites, beyond anything I have or ever will encounter.You/ he never ever answer why he/ you drive?????

Peter Yale ● 1122d

I have trodden in brighter stuff Ben.You can recall the meeting you can recall my comments about cycling and then you make vile comments about not cycling well Ben, I have have no time for totally vile assholes. Enjoy your little world.

N V Brooks ● 1122d

Nigel, I do hope you laugh at your own jokes because nobody else finds you funny. For information, I never receive a notification after someone has replied to ANY comment of mine and that will not change. I will check in now and again, but there's no trigger to do that. I do not want to spend my entire day looking at Ealing Today just to catch up with your distressing opinions.I can remember that meeting with Gerry, Polly, Paul and us two. Apologies in advance if I missed someone out. I also remember the Apple Cake (I can't remember it running out) and you paying for it. Although I remember you with crutches, I can't remember what you look like. I also remember you telling us whereabouts you live, but if I passed you in the street I wouldn't know it was you. So don't be offended if I don't wave to you if you see me on the road. I also recall you telling us that you cycled a lot before your spinal injury. Go back to those days and think about when you did, would you describe yourself then as someone who cycled or a cyclist? When you passed that evil driving test, did you reveal to the examiner that you cycled a lot? Did you do a fist pump when you passed knowing that in years to come you will become a stroppy hypocrite?Incidentally, how soon do you get to know that someone has posted a reply to this thread? What am I not doing?

Ben Owen ● 1122d

Cherry picker /hypocrite,ignored question AGAIN paul sadiq why do you drive???????

Peter Yale ● 1122d

Thank you. My spinal condition means that the essential core element needed to even operate a hand cycle is severely compromised. I can however, safely  drive a motor car hence my choice.Sad that Owen, with his vile comments, cannot find the shred of decency within himself to neither reply nor apoogise.

N V Brooks ● 1122d

>I can no longer ride a bike due to spinal injury.Nigel, these people love to help people get riding no matter what the issue. I've donated to them regularly and even helped win large awards for them as part of a bigger team.https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Paul James ● 1122d

Another cherrypicked replyWhy do you drive????Silence, ignore, scuttle off.& yep I do all that, not only thinking of myself Ben.paul whoever

Peter Yale ● 1122d

>Ride on footway too, as well as jump red lights if safe to do so.You jump red lights if it's safe to do so? :D>I don’t need or want or demand  special bike lanes. I just get on with it.Do you always only think about yourself?

Paul James ● 1123d

If any of them/him responded, be a first

Peter Yale ● 1124d

I can only put your lack of contrition down to a mental aberration or other abnormality Mr. Owen.To jog your memory, at the forum meet-up which we both attended I bought Apple Cake for everyone and Café Grove  ran out much to the annoyance of the very elegant elderly Polish lady who declaimed this as though it was the end of the world.You extolled the virtues of cycling and I explained my inability so to do. My crutches fell over and almost sent Gerry Tan's 'extra milky' coffee flying. You were, and I recall it distinctly, VERY critical of pavement cyclists, one in particular who wore a high visibility jacket.With your memory now jogged, do feel free to apologise.  If you contact Neighbournet they will, if you ask, withdraw your vile post.

N V Brooks ● 1124d

Then by your "logic" I know a good  number of very sociable anti social people.

David Burke ● 1124d

Ben Owen ( or are you paul sadiq james) I ride a bike.I just get on  it & pedal.No need for insurance,tax, mot, Thats when I use my car to transport goods or another reason.I don’t need or want or demand  special bike lanes. I just get on with it.Have a helmet & lights ( unlike some others)Ride on footway too, as well as jump red lights if safe to do so.paul James drives & his reason is??????

Peter Yale ● 1124d

Ah, let me rephrase in words you might understand.It doesn’t make me antisocial. It’s the activity itself that is.Cyclists are inherently selfish and therefore antisocial, unless they happen to be riding two abreast having a chat while oblivious to the rest of what’s around them. Why, they even need special lanes to keep them away from normal people.

Simon Hayes ● 1124d

You say you're anti social when riding a bike, how does this manifest itself?

David Burke ● 1124d

I can no longer ride a bike due to spinal injury. If you can trawl what passes for the vestigal remains of your brain I told you this to your face when had a forum meet at the Cafe Grove with the sadly missed Gerry Tan, when I was already on crutches as arthritis had started to set in.You may apologise whenever you like.

N V Brooks ● 1124d

Nice one Ben. I’m sure Nigel will explain his physical reasons why not.As for Peter, no idea.And for me, I occasionally ride a bike but prefer to walk. It’s less antisocial onevery level.

Simon Hayes ● 1124d

Peter Yale, Nigel Brooks or Simon Hayes, I'm sure you know how to ride a bike, right? Do any of you feel that you can no longer be seen to ride a bike because you might be accused of being hypocritical?

Ben Owen ● 1124d

Ben, are you real or sadiq paul james khan in disguise???Basic facts, science physics whatever.Less space, then everything else is filled to capacity & then some,I proved this to jamesy during Covid lockdown.Garages selling fuel cause long queues along South Ealing Rd.SO I went down side roads, saved time, less pollution & congestion.Are you really so naive, blinkered poisoned, stupid to try & deny simple facts

Peter Yale ● 1124d

Very grown up. Now perhaps you’d like to come up with something that would work. That might include properly funding public transport and not cramming more people into the area and therefore overcrowding all infrastructure, including that public transport.We’ve been over this before. People make choices in life, it’s part of what constitutes democracy. Simply telling everyone to use local facilities is nonsense persistently peddled by the likes of the LCC. If local abilities don’t exist or are rubbish or are oversubscribed then people have to travel elsewhere. Or they might simply prefer something that’s located further away.Then there’s employment. Not everyone is a white, middle class, middle aged cyclist, tapping away on a computer at home all day. It’s probably escaped you limited notice that quite a lot of people have to travel to work, often in areas poorly served by public transport and/or not suitable for cycling.Car clubs would need to have so many vehicles you’d be where you started anyway in terms of numbers. Their vehicles are often unsuitable for the needs of an individual because of their size. And, of course, the drivers are all potential murderers of cyclists.And who decides what constitutes an essential journey? You live in the wrong place if it’s a totalitarian state you want. Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China might suit you better.

Simon Hayes ● 1124d

>There are too many people Paul. That’s the root of a lot of problems in London.People <> cars Simon.>You haven’t cone up with a realistic and sensible alternative.We have one already, walk or ride a bike, use cars much much less, shop local, go to clubs local, get the local economy boosted and make Tesco Osterley go bust.

Paul James ● 1124d

There are too many people Paul. That’s the root of a lot of problems in London.Cars are here to stay until they get outlawed for everybody. You haven’t cone up with a realistic and sensible alternative. Car clubs are not the answer. Nor is clamouring for non essential journeys to be illegal. The LCC doesn’t own London.

Simon Hayes ● 1124d

Good points Mr Hayes.He won’t answer or acknowledge why he drives, bloody hypocrite

Peter Yale ● 1124d

Paul. If someone cycles drunk then they could potentially hurt or kill someone. It happens quite often. So the penalty should be the same if the outcome is the same. Irrespective of weapon (as you like to portray motor vehicles.)I’ve no problem with dangerous drivers being prosecuted. I’d make retesting mandatory every 10 years or so to bring standards up, and ensure that all those who learn to drive abroad are fully cognisant of our road regulations before being allowed to drive here permanently.But I’d also like all cyclists to undergo proper training so they understand the rules of the road too. It’s as much for their protection as anything else.You don’t seem to realise that your default position is to point the finger of blame at car drivers. I recall my first encounter with you on this forum some years ago, when I pointed out some very dangerous cycling when a cyclist didn’t stop for kids on a pedestrian crossing outside a school, nearly crashing into them. You least to his defence and went off on one about drivers being worse, etc. You simply label all drivers as potential killers, when that’s simply untrue.Of course, you could take a vow never to drive a vehicle again, because getting behind the wheel makes you part of the problem of ‘too many cars’  that You constantly bemoan. It might make the roads safer too.And have you got a. LTN installed in your road yet? Or a ‘Climate Safe Street’?

Simon Hayes ● 1124d

Your confirming my point, it’s not necessary for cyclists.Now as you keep ignoring amongst your cherry picking .Why do you drive??????

Peter Yale ● 1125d

>You pay no insurance tax mot, a legal requirement for vehicles.VED (car tax if you like) - Not all vehicles are subject to this, including bicyclesInsurance - I do pay insurance for cycling, but if you don't most people are covered by the public liability insurance that comes with house insurance, but that specifically excludes things like driving which you need separate insurances for (understandably)MOT - MOT for bikes, it's just not going to happen. An MOT for cars is absolutely a necessary thing given the potential for harm if such a vehicle goes wrong on the road.

Paul James ● 1125d

Not a lot of your post made much sense there to be honest.

Paul James ● 1125d

None the less a fair assessment As for cyclists “paying “ they demand & dictate more & more road space.You don’t seem to understand. You pay no insurance tax mot, a legal requirement for vehicles. Do listen

Peter Yale ● 1125d

Done it again paul sadiq james. Sneak a cherrypicked reply & ignored questions asked.People need cars, including YOU (hypocrite) the council, TFL  adjust figures & in fact cause congestion, consequently pollution.Hopefully TFL & idiot khan will be disbanded.He is second only to you with anti car rhetoric.The proposed ulez nonsense under consultation is being implemented anyway. Some democratic vote, reminds me of ltns, do what they like

Peter Yale ● 1125d

>we demand everything for free cyclists,Protected cycle tracks aren't free, they cost a LOT of money. That's money raised from council tax and general taxation that we all pay, including people who have never cycled OR driven.

Paul James ● 1125d

>But Paul, you are confusing yourself.Said somebody that wrote this patently incorrect statement and has now waffled to try and bury it."Potential harm has nothing to do with it, Paul. Here’s the thing, that’s not an offence."If you don't get this I have to ask can you really be debating this subject?>Of course offences should be prosecuted, in all instances, but to insist ad nauseam that drivers of motor vehicles (not just cars, which seems to be your default position) are always at fault is patent nonsenseI've never said that of course. More strawmen from you. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.>If a cyclist collided with a vehicle because the rider hadn’t obeyed the rules of the road then contributory negligence applies. You don’t seem to understand that concept.You keep misrepresenting me.>Drink driving is rightly an offence, but I wonder how many of the drunken cyclists on the road get prosecuted? No 14 year sentence for them if they kill someone.You think somebody who get's on a bike after five pints should be treated in the same way by the legal system as somebody who gets in a car, and then a truck, and then an aircraft to fly it?All should be treated in the same way?>You seem to really dislike most people. Very few seem to match your standards of behaviour. Welcome to the real world.More bullying and misrepresentation of me from you again.

Paul James ● 1125d

>Yet you constantly whinge about too many cars it strikes many people that There are too many cars Simon.I'm not whining, it's a statement of fact. Ealing Council think so too, so do TFL, so does the government.

Paul James ● 1125d

paul sadiq james “ answered “ this!!!! What the ......Maybe, yes no???It’s simple whether you kill someone with a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks.This typifies your bias & hypocrisy.You won’t have a bad word about all  the lawbreaking, we demand everything for free cyclists, yet you admit again to driving. Never ever explain why though do you?????paul  sadiq james khan. Why do you drive??????

Peter Yale ● 1125d

How are you getting on with implementing an LTN in your road Paul? Surely such ‘charity’ starts at home!

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

Time to move on, any reasoned debate is impossible with those who don't have the intellectual bandwidth to answer a simple question.I see Paul now "wants something done", following in the footsteps of 'ban them because they don't agree with me' Owen.Frankly pathetic behaviour. Still, at least your 'ghoulish' neighbours now know your true worth.

N V Brooks ● 1125d

Yet you constantly whinge about too many cars it strikes many people that you don’t really like it here. Maybe Copenhagen would suit you better.And horrible responses? Coming from the person who describes fellow residents as ghouls. Laughable.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

But Paul, you are confusing yourself.Of course offences should be prosecuted, in all instances, but to insist ad nauseam that drivers of motor vehicles (not just cars, which seems to be your default position) are always at fault is patent nonsense. If a cyclist collided with a vehicle because the rider hadn’t obeyed the rules of the road then contributory negligence applies. You don’t seem to understand that concept.Drink driving is rightly an offence, but I wonder how many of the drunken cyclists on the road get prosecuted? No 14 year sentence for them if they kill someone.You seem to really dislike most people. Very few seem to match your standards of behaviour. Welcome to the real world.I’d suggest you are the real bully here. Goes with the LCC territory.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

>No Paul. It was open for debate, but you three don’t do debate, just preachy nonsense and finger pointing.Yet I've gone into quite a lot of detail what I think of this.It's your couching of questions and your horrible responses that turn it from a debate to an argument.>You could just go live somewhere else and do everyone a favour.Nice! :D

Paul James ● 1125d

No Paul. It was open for debate, but you three don’t do debate, just preachy nonsense and finger pointing.You could just go live somewhere else and do everyone a favour.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

>Oh, and I’m well aware that there probably won’t be anything done about this but by posting the article it’s flushed out the viler aspects of the three cyclopaths on this forum.The dictionary definition of a troll there.

Paul James ● 1125d

>So, you think that cyclists who kill people should have the benefit of the circumstances taken into consideration. You don’t think that with drivers if motor vehicles, though.Circumstances are ALWAYS taken into consideration in the sentencing Simon in both cases.>Potential harm has nothing to do with it, Paul. Here’s the thing, that’s not an offence. Probably a good thing you don’t run things, eh?Dangerous driving and Careless or inconsiderate driving and drunk driving ARE offences BECAUSE of the potential to harm others, nobody needs to get hurt or killed for people to be charged and prosecuted for them.>Oh, and I’m not angry or full of hatred, Yet you bully me and others here consistently.>I just don’t like twits like you pontificating about subjects where they clearly have little knowledge. It’s not for you to prescribe how others should live their lives.There you go, you're an angry bully.>Your cognitive bias means that you can’t admit that there are reckless cyclists out there. Strawman argument, there are idiots on bikes out there I've never suggested there aren't.>It’s always the drivers with you.Untrue, it's just that drivers have MUCH more of a responsibility to watch out for others given the increased potential for harm, this is written in law. It SO disappointment me when I see drivers behaving in ways that can result in serious injury or death so easily, and I see it a lot.Cyclists treating a traffic light junction as a normal junction, or riding across a red light on a clear pelican crossing? Not so much. You seem to be just black and white on it though, volume 0 or 10.>But then that makes you a potential killer every time you decide to drive because it suits you.I am very much aware of that when I drive, far more so than when I cycle, and again far more so than when I walk, and I have knocked somebody over when walking before (rather we collided walking across a station and they fell), it can happen.>Potential harm has nothing to do with it, Paul. Here’s the thing, that’s not an offence.I've just repeated this as what you've written there is clearly not correct, do you want to have another go?

Paul James ● 1125d

So what’s the difference, if the outcome is the same? Dangerous use of a road vehicle, which is what you class a bicycle as.All over the place? Just had to get you to engage rather than dodge as usual. Finally got you to give an answer of sorts but as usual there’s a glaring blind spot there.But what’s really interesting is that the demand for cycling infrastructure from pressure groups is still there but no mandatory requirement for cyclists to use them. Then they bleat about the danger of traffic. You can’t have it both ways.Oh, and I’m well aware that there probably won’t be anything done about this but by posting the article it’s flushed out the viler aspects of the three cyclopaths on this forum.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

And this proposal is so out of whack you really should be asking why Shapps is doing this now, because I really don't think it's about what you think it's about. I think it's just a sop, you can spot this by the audience Shapps chose to promote it to.Nigel said the same in the first few posts.

Paul James ● 1125d

So, you think that cyclists who kill people should have the benefit of the circumstances taken into consideration. You don’t think that with drivers if motor vehicles, though.Potential harm has nothing to do with it, Paul. Here’s the thing, that’s not an offence. Probably a good thing you don’t run things, eh?Oh, and I’m not angry or full of hatred, I just don’t like twits like you pontificating about subjects where they clearly have little knowledge. It’s not forvyou to prescribe how others should live their lives.Your cognitive bias means that you can’t admit that there are reckless cyclists out there. It’s always the drivers with you. But then that makes you a potential killer every time you decide to drive because it suits you.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

>Do you think sentences for drivers who kill people with their vehicles should be the same as for those who kill people with their bicycles?This is a different question. You're all over the place.I've answered it below anyway, but I'll do it again.Most likely not, depends on the situation though.

Paul James ● 1125d

>My question is should cyclists face longer sentences for killing people with their machines? It’s nit difficult, even for you to say yes or no.I've already answered this, maybe, yes and no.Your question is VERY badly formed, which is quite surprising for somebody with a law degree. You anger and I suggest hatred is getting the better of you here.What's being discussed here is should there be a NEW offence for death by dangerous cycling. This may or may not come with an increased maximum sentence of two years similar to the current law used to prosecute people on bikes.People very rarely get the maximum sentence anyway for this offence, as drivers very rarely get the maximum sentence for DDD.Do I think the punishments available to judges for dangerous cycling should be the same as those for dangerous driving?No, dangerously driving a car has much more potential for harm and this should be reflected in the sentence, and the way people have been killed by dangerous drivers is MUCH more violent and certain than the way people have been killed by people on bikes, which frankly, are freak occurrences and more related to the falling over part of the collision than anything.I've said all this already, as I have detailed what I think about the proposed new offence; it's a silly waste of time, there is MUCH more important stuff to be discussing and doing to deter people from harming others.

Paul James ● 1125d

It isn't a 'rediculous (sic) question' at all and should be straighforward to answer.A cyclist causes death by striking another road user.The simple question, cone on. step up and answer and you elevate yourself above the Paul and Bens who are proably now  innured to avoid a straight answer to "what is your name"."Should the sentence be the same as that of a motorist causing the death of another road user".Yes or no? It really is that simple.

N V Brooks ● 1125d

The only ridiculous thing is your refusal to answer. Classic LCC to dismiss anything you don’t agree with.As you well know people are killed and injured by cyclists. Or do you deem that a lesser offence? The outcome is the same, so it’s reasonable to assume the sanction should be the same. Or do you also draw a distinction between a gun and a knife when it comes to murder?Time you grew up and joined the adults in the room.

Simon Hayes ● 1125d

Cars are registered, identifiable.Controlled by cameras, no go areas (bus lanes)Cyclists not 1 jot, so Mr Hayes raises a fair & just point

Peter Yale ● 1125d

What is the more likely, that stand a better chance of survival after being hit by a bicycle propelled by a human being or a car with an internal combustion engine under the bonnet.Rediculous question

David Burke ● 1126d

As you can’t answer the simple question put to you, perhaps you’d like to answer this one instead. A simple yes or no will suffice.Do you think sentences for drivers who kill people with their vehicles should be the same as for those who kill people with their bicycles?

Simon Hayes ● 1126d

Paul, you haven’t answered the question. You made a lot of equivocal statements and then said other things need to be done first.That’s not answering. My question is should cyclists face longer sentences for killing people with their machines? It’s nit difficult, even for you to say yes or no.

Simon Hayes ● 1126d

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is one of the longest words in the OED and is the term for a fear of long words!

N V Brooks ● 1126d

Todays long wordSesquipedalianSomeone who uses long words.

David Burke ● 1126d

Bloody hell , this coming from sadiq paul khan owen james!!!Champion of cherry picking, ignoring, swerving etc etc

Peter Yale ● 1126d

Yet I've gone into quite a lot of detail about what I think of all this.Simon "you never answer a question [in the way I want you to] Hayes.

Paul James ● 1126d

I think they are all the same person

Peter Yale ● 1126d

There seems to a problem of brain evaporation in some parts here. Must be the hot weather.I bet Paul, Ben and David never answer the question.

Simon Hayes ● 1127d

Fantasy defelection, traffic simply does not evaporate as the good people of Waltham Forest, Harrow and Enfield have found out to their cost. Harrow is now ripping out LTNs and poorly planned cycling infrastructure.Equally, dedicating an entire suburban side street to the 2% of journeys made by bike is nonsensical.So, are you actually going to answer the question about increased sentences or simply move onto the next stage of your playbook?

N V Brooks ● 1127d

https://youtu.be/_DNNIB_PdaA

Ben Owen ● 1127d

Today's word is Paraprosdokians:Paraprosdokians are figures of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected, and is frequently humorous. Aposite examples1. Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.2. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.3. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.4. I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

N V Brooks ● 1127d

The good old days. Isn’t that what the LCC want to go back to?I note that not one of the pro cycling lobby on here has come out to say they think cyclists ought to be punished more severely for killing people with their machines. Is the concept too difficult to grasp?As usual, digression, diversion and ignoring.

Simon Hayes ● 1127d

David, just for you. I though the first song appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTcnneb7M20

N V Brooks ● 1127d

Ben I use one word with which you have difficulty. Knowing the level of intellectual bandwidth normally displayed by you, Paul and your ilk I go to lengths to explain it but still you move to stage two in the playbook.Fortunately my eighteen-month-old twin grandchildren are visiting later and , by comparison with your rantings Ben, the conversation will be intelligent.David, I explained the word and why I used it, so do please, get over yourself there's a good chap.

N V Brooks ● 1127d

Those of us of a certain vintage may remember a programme called "The good old days" whereby the MC Leonard Sachs used to  use long and obscure words to describe upcoming acts,verbosity, very entertaining in that programme but it comes over as silly  and as you say pompous when used on a forum such as this.

David Burke ● 1127d

But rich coming from someone who constantly belittles anyone who might drive a car. The truly vile people are the cycling fanatics who fulminate all the time against anyone who doesn’t conform to their narrow world view.And clearly Ben you can’t answer a straight question, rather like Pail. You obviously think cyclists should have free rein to break the law.

Simon Hayes ● 1127d

People have different motivations for using pompous words instead of plain language. Nigel may wish to sound impressive and assume, incorrectly, that he is intelligent because he believes fancyisms trump familiar words. You see, snobbery makes him feel better. People, like Nigel, often want to feel superior when they make accusations or, more commonly, don't know what they are talking about. Nigel's vile trait is that he hasn't got anything better to do than to attempt to belittle. He is the male form of a Karen.

Ben Owen ● 1127d

Ipsedixitism has an interesting origin and roots in the Latin for 'he said it'. In turn, this is translated from a Greek expression used by disciples of Pythagoras to justify, without proof, any argument they chose.Surely this is akin to the fantasy 'visions' of some on this forum used to underpin their wildest paranoic assertions.

N V Brooks ● 1128d

Very strange indeed.........one presumes said posters are out on their bicycles trying not to kill pedestrians.No doubt they’ll pop up again with more nonsense.

Simon Hayes ● 1128d

Strange isn't it how things from disparate sources often fall into place?The word ipsedixitism popped into my inbox (I like the breadth and beauty of the English language).It means a dogmatic assertion of a 'fact' without giving any form of supporting evidence. How aposite it is for a couple of the posters in this thread.

N V Brooks ● 1128d

So there we have it, the cycling lobby’s approach to debate proven yet again.Deflect from the topic? ✔️ Attack other road users? ✔️ Emote about being victims? ✔️ Fail to produce any evidence to support their theories? ✔️ Finally, refuse to engage? ✔️ Then they wonder why they look ridiculous.

Simon Hayes ● 1128d

What a pile of supposition and nonsense. Where are your stats for your assertions about what other vehicle drivers think? Maybe Rachel Aldred could supply them. Your personal opinion isn’t fact, is it?I walk plenty, and my observation skills are very good. Of course there are bad drivers, but that’s a minority. But there are plenty of good ones too. And from my own years of driving I’ve never cut up a cyclist, though my car was once hit by a drunk oaf on a bike. Of course, in your view there’s not an offence.I see you now class a bike as a ‘second car’. In which case the punishments for causing death or injury when riding one should mirror those caused by motorised vehicles. Or do you subscribe to the Johnson motto of having cake and eating it?But you haven’t denied that cyclists who cause serious accidents should be punished. Which makes you a hypocrite.

Simon Hayes ● 1128d

>Ben, are you on some strong medication? And what if I am?  > Nobody is fuming behind a wheel. Clearly you don't walk or cycle. The fact is that every day I see road rage. > The angry brigade all seem to be cyclistsWhen they are not riding a bike and driving their car, do they become decent people? Lots of people who drive own a second car - it's called a bicycle.Truck drivers, bus drivers and coach drivers detest the majority of car drivers - not all, but lots. Cars show no consideration for their length or size of vehicle. Stress levels peak when lorries reverse. Those that do show courtesy are always thanked well, because most don't.

Ben Owen ● 1128d

Ben, are you on some strong medication? Your ravings about evil car drivers has no relevance to this thread whatsoever. You presume a great deal about everyone else. It just makes you look silly. Nobody is fuming behind a wheel. The angry brigade all seem to be cyclists, given the constant bleating about victimisation.Clearly you are Paul’s strong arm man, since you crop up here when his own feeble efforts prove inadequate.The LCC playbook - and we are all very familiar with it by now - advises on how to conduct arguments without having any factual evidence with which to support your case. Deflection, aggression, then don’t engage.So you obviously think cyclists who kill people should not be punished more severely. Warped. And then you wonder why your organisation lacks credibility.

Simon Hayes ● 1128d

If your rant was worthy of a response I would make one. Trolling out the same old  "look at us, we are so worthy" schtuk impresses no one.Just another cyclist that dodges the issue raised in the original post.

N V Brooks ● 1128d

Ben (& sadiq james). Who says my journeys are short, I do - have to do a lot of mileage. Not for fun no one drives for fun, what will all the restrictions.I don’t care about paying to park outside my house.If you cyclists , oh by the way I DO cycle too, want so much carriageway, then contribute.As I keep telling the other one, we need tax insurance not to go on road, pay our way.We are registered, logged whatever & fined at every turn.Same rules should apply to cyclists too if we are to have an even playing field.As for ltns, unnnecessary hold ups which cause congestion & the majority voted out.I proved to pjr this.

Peter Yale ● 1128d

I can just hear you lot scowling behind a wheel muttering '''How dare s/he dare take the lane to protect themselves from me?' 'They are on a effin bike and they think they own the road. 'Well I am in my car so screw them, I will intimidate her/him and force my way past.' 'I am not going to make it easy for her or him to cycle because I have to buy petrol to make this ton of metal move, whereas all they have to do is to go out and buy Weetabix and peddle.' 'Even worse, they are able to go faster than me, even on a crappy £200 bike they can cut minutes of their journey leaving me sitting in my £40,000 car.''' Here is me looking at Nigel, Simon and Peter. Can you comprehend that it is because of the type of attitude I am describing here, it really does force people who would like to try to cycle out of the saddle and (back) into a car? Consequently putting more cars on the road, making your lives more miserable and making your short journeys even slower. What's the win here? Boo, shame you to have to pay for a parking permit, and you are still not entitled enough to guarantee a spot outside your front door, poor chaps, whereas on a bike you could! I think of 4p a day as cheap. But then I don't own a car so I do not have the privilege of thinking it as expensive. On a short journey, where there is no shopping etc, the only benefit from a car is to pollute the planet, whereas the only emissions that come from a cyclist are farts - and usually very well timed to pop when one cycles over a speed hump. And scientists say that because there's more speed humps than ever, cyclists are farting more. It is hilarious. Unsurprising that you dislike Grant Shapps. About 10 years ago he tried come up with a plan to help ex-prisoners find aand maintain a home in the private sector knowing that it could reduce reoffending by up to a fifth. It never got off the ground and, today, the prison population rises.

Ben Owen ● 1128d

And yet, and yet, you are not so equivocal when it comes to ‘car drivers’ are you? In your view they are always in the wrong, regardless of what really happened. That’s the point, Paul. You just can’t bear the thought that there may be a lot of very bad cyclists about, and that their machines might kill or injure someone.I’m not really interested in your links. I have a law degree. As I said, which barrack room did you get yours from?

Simon Hayes ● 1128d

>Don’t deflect, fudge or ignore. Do you think cyclists who kill people when on their bikes should be more severely punished? Even you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.Because it's not a simple question with a yes or no answer as I've pointed out previously, it depends what happened.Are some sentences handed down too lenient, possibly, are some too much, possibly too, and some just right, maybe.For this one the defendant didn't even get the maximum sentence anyway, do you think they should have got more for this? What sentence would you have passed down?https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/speeding-cyclist-killed-woman-after-24491624Here's the law that they were prosecuted under.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35

Paul James ● 1128d

Paul. I take it that you condone cyclists endangering pedestrians and don’t want to see deterrent punishment introduced. You haven’t said otherwise.Don’t deflect, fudge or ignore. Do you think cyclists who kill people when on their bikes should be more severely punished? Even you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.And at which barrack room did you obtain your law degree?

Simon Hayes ● 1129d

& that’s why you see so many clamped cars,  because people forget about the letter as a tax disc has been done away with.It’s the law to allow motorists on road

Peter Yale ● 1129d

Not talking about roads.Talking about legality for the umpteenth time.Motorists have to have tax insurance & mot.Cyclist nothing

Peter Yale ● 1129d

Were you in court for any of these cases?Do you have full access to the evidence?No? Then your 'opinion' isn't really worth my time to consider.The end result is the same, someone died.

N V Brooks ● 1129d

>You as a cyclist do not legally need a tax to cycle on road.And neither do any of these.https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-vehicle-taxYour point is?A reminder that roads are paid for from council tax and general taxation... they are not funded by VED, or fuel duty, or the cost of your insurances etc...

Paul James ● 1129d

>Why should it be any different for cyclists, all three of them that were found guilty in 2021?I VERY much doubt any of the cyclists that ended up killing somebody recently would have been found guilty of death by dangerous cycling had such a law existed at the time.Death by dangerous driving is a very serious offence, often involving very high speeds or very, very bad and dangerous driving in a two tonne plus motorised machine in a situation that could have resulted in the death of many. Death by dangerous cycling, if such an offence is introduced will not be on a par with that I suspect.

Paul James ● 1129d

No I’m trying to correct you.Not a cat in hells chance you are so fixated & as always cherry pick points.You as a cyclist do not legally need a tax to cycle on road.

Peter Yale ● 1129d

The current penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is one to 14 years in prison, and a driving ban for a minimum of two years.  Why should it be any different for cyclists, all three of them that were found guilty in 2021?There are FAR more important safety issues however to address. Use of non-handsfree mobile phones by any road user. The wearing of headphones while riding or driving. The blatant disregard of red lights (as seemingly condoned by some forum users). All and any of these would make a more immediate impact to road safety.

N V Brooks ● 1129d

>However, your refusal to agree that sentences should be increased for cyclists who kill indicates that you think dangerous cycling that causes this is acceptable. That’s warped.What's warped is that you would try and pin that on me.I already answered your questions.Do I think there should be a "death by dangerous cycling" statutory offence? Possibly, but I think there are more important things to do first which would have more of an effect on road safety in general. People being killed after being hit by somebody on a bike remains a vanishingly rare situation and I'm not sure a change in the law like that would even reduce the instances of it happening.Do I think people that end up killing others due to being irresponsible on a bike should get more punitive sentences than they got? Depends on the situation, some seem lenient, some don't, but then it's a call a judge makes at the time.In a recent case they did try and charge the person with manslaughter, but the jury found them not guilty of that and the person was jailed for the maximum two years allowed by the current law. I don't think any new law would go above two years, and even if it did, like all maximum sentences it would be very rarely applied.

Paul James ● 1129d

>Yes, we ALL pay via taxes But you said cyclists contribute nothing? Are you correcting yourself there?

Paul James ● 1129d

You are so blinkered. I’m saying (read slowly) cyclists dont legally have to pay as motorists do, for a tax disc - whatever equivalent is now.Or insurance, it’s voluntary for you darlings.Yes, we ALL pay via taxes but motorists pay more through other expenditures cyclists don’t.Do keep up

Peter Yale ● 1129d

Paul, I probably know more about UK law than you will ever learn from google. I’m well aware of the variation in sentencing. Funny how you don’t ever look at links sent to you though...However, your refusal to agree that sentences should be increased for cyclists who kill indicates that you think dangerous cycling that causes this is acceptable. That’s warped.

Simon Hayes ● 1129d

Simon, the UK has a system of maximum sentences for various offences, and they all have different settings.Maximum sentences are VERY rarely applied anyway, they are an exception.Aggravating factors play a role, so if you go into a bank to rob it by sneaking into the vault there will be a different sentence applied than if you go in the front with shotguns.For the same reason the sentences available to judges for drink driving are much different to those for just being drunk, and then again for being drunk in charge of a jet place for instance.So it depends on the situation.This seem to subtle for your arguments though.More here on sentencing in the UK.https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/

Paul James ● 1129d

So by your logic, killing someone with a bike is less of an offence than killing someone with a motor vehicle?Very, very warped.

Simon Hayes ● 1129d

Do I think there should be anew statutory offence for death by dangerous cycling?When MUCH more important stuff is done first, possibly.As far as improving safety it would be VERY low down on my list to implement, there is MUCH more important stuff to get done first.

Paul James ● 1129d

Do I think maximum sentence available to judges for any new "death by dangerous cycling" statutory offence should be the same as the maximum sentence for "Causing death by dangerous driving"?No.

Paul James ● 1129d

>I’m not interested in your tax nonsenseIt was Peter Yale that raised this on your post, not me.

Paul James ● 1129d

So you don’t think cyclists who break the law, injure and kill people should be punished as severely as other road users? It’s not a silly question. Your usual response to any perceived persecution of cyclistsvis one of rabid one-eyed defence. So, do you think jail sentences forvcycousts shoukd new increased?I’m not interested in your tax nonsense.

Simon Hayes ● 1129d

>Paul. The point of the post was that cyclists who kill people should face longer jail sentences as a deterrent to them flouting the law.I was responding to Peter Yale's repeated claim that people that cycle contribute nothing to the upkeep of roads, motorways and streets. This is clearly nonsense, we all pay for the upkeep of these things through income tax, council tax and other taxes we pay, even people that have never or will never use a car.>Or do you think cyclists killing people is acceptable?I would be much more interested in your reason for asking such a silly "question", but I don't think you're going to be able to come out with that.

Paul James ● 1129d

Paul. The point of the post was that cyclists who kill people should face longer jail sentences as a deterrent to them flouting the law. As usual you fudge that argument and whinge about taxation (incorrectly twisting things to suit your narrative).Or do you think cyclists killing people is acceptable?

Simon Hayes ● 1129d

You really cannot grasp any point that doesn't support your (increasingly narrow) narrative can you Paul?Without those £Billions (c,$42 billion) you choose to ignore even the infrastructure you routinely criticise as inadequate would be, like many of your 'sightings', a fantasy. Without that contribution, representing over 5% of general taxation, the money would be spent on far more important things than cycling infrastructure. So say "thank you" to the nice motorists for helping to underpin the cost of your'inadequate' cycle lane.

N V Brooks ● 1129d

Actually as usual you have cherry picked & selected part answers.You may not own a car (perhaps before), but you DID drive from  Richmond, however you constantly ignore that.As for the old fashioned car tax, however you name it, label it, categorise it.For motorists it’s a legal requirement, before they can drive on road.Same as insurance, you cycling luvvies can choose, motorists cant

Peter Yale ● 1129d

It's not just motorists contributing billions of pounds to general taxation Nigel. That's the point.I, as somebody who doesn't own a car, may well pay more tax overall than somebody who does for instance, like Peter.And you know this is why the link between motoring taxes and road funding was split in the first place don't you? First of all, it didn't cover it, and the government at the time made the wise decision to make it clear everybody paid taxes to build roads and highways, not just motorists who thought they owned them due to the link between them.Sadly, for some this ridiculous misunderstanding still exists.

Paul James ● 1129d

Because by not including it you ignore the billions of pounds that motorists contribute to general taxation which pays for,among other things, the dedicated cycling infrastructure demanded daily by those who are unable or unwilling to ride with other traffic.  But then again this is all about you Paul isn't it as you say I don't need it therefore I won't mention it?

N V Brooks ● 1129d

> forgetting the c.90p per litre in Fuel Duty and VAT and the Green Levy and VAT rendered on electricity to charge one of those nasty polluting, full of toxic lithium. Teslas and their ilk.I need none of that for my bike though so why would I include it?!Maybe I'm not a freeloader as Peter is suggesting, just a lot more clever with my money than he is!

Paul James ● 1129d

>These shits give law abiding decent cyclists a bad name.Only to people happy to be prejudiced Nigel!

Paul James ● 1129d

Conveniently, or negligently, forgetting the c.90p per litre in Fuel Duty and VAT and the Green Levy and VAT rendered on electricity to charge one of those nasty polluting, full of toxic lithium. Teslas and their ilk.

N V Brooks ● 1129d

Been away?The forum has been so much more relaxed and a far more pleasant place while you were absent.Even you can't have failed to notice the sheer number of cyclists jumping the temporary traffic lights on Boston Road. Never mind, they are coming out on Tuesday so the 'mouthy minority' can go back to riding at speed on the pavement. These shits give law abiding decent cyclists a bad name.

N V Brooks ● 1129d

Plenty of studies to show that if you take the total cost of ownership, including road injury and death, pollution, manufacturing, oil extraction and refinement, actual subsidies paid to car manufacturers etc... that motoring is a subsidised activity.Cor, when they had lead in petrol it adversely affected millions, add that up for you 41p a day VED and see if it covers it!

Paul James ● 1130d

(Oh, I pay a fair whack of income tax, I bet I pay more income tax than you do, get off my roads :D )

Paul James ● 1130d

>Cyclists immune, yet want more carriageway, road space. Demand in factYou're not making much sense.For my bike I pay taxes when I buy bits for it, or get it serviced.No fuel tax of course (unless you count the tax of the food I consume for the tiny amount of energy I use to power my legs).No emissions so no VED due (what you call road tax), Tesla's aren't subject to VED either, the VED you pay for polluting in public (what , £150 a year, 41p a day) goes into the general pot of taxation. it's not spent on roads in the same way alcohol duty isn't spend on pubs.Local roads are paid for from COUNCIL TAX, which both I and you (presumably) pay.Insurance? My insurance for when I cycle is £35 a YEAR which reflects the risk I pose to others. Car insurance is more because a LOT more money needs to be collected to cover the damages caused to cars and people hit buy them.

Paul James ● 1130d

Er How is it subsidised?If the revenue raised from road users of all types, including the fuel duty, insurance taxes and VAT, over the last 70 years enough would have been raised for a fully complete motorway network , tunnels under most cities , proper by passes and a fully integrated road network including proper cycleways.Even with just vehicle excise duty alone all that could have been paid for.The Sunday Times highlighted this in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s but the revenue raised has subsidised all manner or needs.As you are no doubt aware the increase in Electric vehicles is starting to dent revenue and the economic downturn and sheer high cost of fuel will cause a further drop leaving those still able to afford or need transportation to make a living with increased costs.Most of that will have to be passed on and bingo inflation which hits everyone.But this subsidise nonsense is some cooked up spin which is unsubstantiated.Take motor transport out of the equation and this country is bust..big time.So obviously the fairer way is to increase everyones income taxes and vat on everything.

Raymond Havelock ● 1130d

Say again contribute nothing.Pay no insurance, legal requirement for cars etcPay old fashioned tax ( whatever it is now instead of tax disc)Legally required for vehicle to be roadworthy- MOT.All the sneaky back door revenue, parking/speeding/bus lane, traffic infringements.Cyclists immune, yet want more carriageway, road space. Demand in fact

Peter Yale ● 1130d

>Contribute nothingYou've got to stop saying this. It's patently untrue and extremely disrespectful to your fellow tax payers.I choose not to own a car so I don't have to fuel it, or pay VED, or insurance, or silly money fixing it, although if I did own a car I'd be pretty certain it would be electric and therefore it wouldn't be subject to VED anyway.And as a reminder, driving is a SUBSIDISED activity.

Paul James ● 1130d

There is a divide between the road using community.A glaringly, blatantly obvious one.Those with motor vehicles, abide by the Highway Code/law.Pay taxes through every orifice imaginable, are licensed & regulated.Yet, they are penalised at every stepPedal power people, dictate, demand, shout, scream to have every inch of road taken over for them.Contribute nothing & flout every traffic byelaw goingCue paul sadiq richard khan james

Peter Yale ● 1130d

Given the current crop of supposed reporters on the BBC that does not surprise me one bit.

N V Brooks ● 1130d

This was on the BBC website.

Simon Hayes ● 1131d

Grant Shapps will say anything about anything if it keeps his ego afloat.Probably the biggest liability in the Cabinet and possibly the Tory party.On a Par with the Mayor of London for soundbites and double standards and zero achievements..

Raymond Havelock ● 1131d

Don't fall for the Daily Mail and Guardian clickbait.Both of those rubbish rags seek to divide the road using community.Increasing the sentence will affect a sum total of three cyclists in the last year and yet you would think that there was an epidemic. The Mail and  The Guardian are guilty of trash journalism as usual. They never contextualise anything.

N V Brooks ● 1131d