Safe Speed Forums

Some blunt responses here from UKIP candidate Peter Burkinshaw to a questionnaire from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2013maycounty/eastchesterton/

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Ha, ha! Excellent. No politically correct rubbish there then.

In the Times today was a letter which rather gives away some cyclists' viewpoint. As it is behind a paywall, I will quote most of it here:



If I had written something similar substituting driving a car for cycling you can imagine the response.

The Times is running a campaign for improved cycling facilities particularly nearside blind spot mirrors for lorries. I would have thought that the best thing to campaign about in this context is to persuade cyclists NOT TO FILTER UP THE INSIDE OF LORRIES. Why do cyclists want to filter to the front of queues of traffic anyway? Is it to get wherever they are going a bit quicker? Isn't this what they accuse motorists of and say "a few extra minutes isn't much to save your life"?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

mALCOLM - .I've been castigated on here for stating that if I spot one of our two wheeled kami kazi blokes attempting to filter down my car inside ,I close the gap between car and pavement, particularly at one junction . But I find it's mostly the idiots on small wheeled cycles that try this . At the approach to this particular junction, I've spotted them alteranting between pavement and road ( and narrowly avoiding pedestrians) to make idiotic( not safe ) progress. Wish we had a bloke like the UKIP man standing here . Sadly our old anti speed camera/speed policy/speed hump bloke is retiring at these elections ,and even more sadly ,he'll not be in politics to say "I told you it wouldn't work" to the lot at County hall who thought that if traffic moved at a snail pace, all would be safe on the roads . But that depends on all obeying the HC/RULES OF THE ROAD . But then how often do we see that a certain faction ( down Weepy) think those rules don't apply to them .or don't even know the HC /rules of the road . Possibly down to policy not to teach /ingrain in kids ,that road safety is not an accident, but the duty of ALL road users to lok out for the safety of others .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

So your response to someone doing something you perceive as wrong is to make a dangerous manoeuvre?

Filtering is perfectly legal and as has been discussed on here before a bike or motorbike filtering is classed the same as having an extra lane so what you are doing is the same as cutting someone up because they try to drive down another lane beside you. What's more, that someone is a potentially vulnerable road user.

Just think about whet you are doing for a second, then don't do it. What happens when it goes wrong and you put someone in hospital?

That UKIP guy is another ignorant idiot that appears to think there is such a thing as road tax that is used to pay for the roads.

Hilarious irony from botach there.

You intentionally speed regularly right? And did you say you're not adverse to using the mobile occasionally? And intentionally blocking filterers which I can imagine in some circumstances actually increases the danger to them and those around them?

He he, I wonder if he's ever asked a mobile phone using car driver to put their phone down. That'll be a real eye opener for him.

Still they pay for the roads so they're allowed to break the law in the most dangerous way I suspect.

Yes but so are a lot of things that are ill advised.

I certainly would not attempt to correct someone's ill advised behaviour as Botach says he does. I would just let them keep doing it until they get a severe fright or worse.

I still think that self-professed vulnerable road users such as cyclists should take a lot more care of their safety precisely because of this perceived vulnerability. So, don't filter up the inside of lorries and put yourself at risk.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I presume you think every cyclist that has been killed by a lorry that was turning was filtering up the inside of it?

Motorists pay - specifically in their capacity as motorists - tax revenue from VED and fuel duty that pays for the roads about five times over.

Cyclists pay - specifically in their capacity as cyclists - zero, but they still expect vast sums to be splurged on "cycling facilities" which they then proceed to whinge about.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Divisive, partisan, inaccurate, nonsense and drivel.

Why not go argue that as a "motorist" you should be entitled to jump the queue at NHS A&E cos you "pay more taxes" than that cyclist that's in front of you?

Then if it's me you've got a problem cos not only have I got three very nice bikes, I've got a very nice car too.

Lot's of evidence that private motoring is subsidised too, if you take into account the total cost of ownership.

Maybe motorists SHOULD pay for the cost of motoring to the UK economy. Good luck with that £1000.00 a month VED charge!

And just in case you didn't notice, part of your council tax bill includes a charge for road maintenance and repairs.

Money raised from motoring taxes and charges is put in a big pot like all other general taxes.

Ooh, home truths always hurt

And the cycling lobby aren't divisive with their constant attacks on motorists?


Dare I say "drivel"?

So we'd be better off relying on horse-drawn transport, would we?

Count up all the stuff in your house that has used motor transport for at least part of its journey...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"Bits" of "the cycling lobby" (whatever that is) might be, just in the same way that "bits" of the "motoring lobby" (whatever that is) might be.

Meanwhile, in the real world most of us adults are cyclists AND pedestrians AND motorists.




The driving forum equivalent of Godwin's law. I.e. how long will it take for somebody to bring up going back to horse drawn transport.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... NTCMP=SRCH

Looks like they don't figure in the regular bailouts we see of car manufacturers either.

You sure you want vehicle taxes ringfenced?

£600 a year is rather different from £1000 a month. And presumably that is already paid for from the vast amount of taxes already leached from motorists.

And if you're complaining about the cost of something, you need to put forward an alternative that will cost less...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No, the study asserts that that's what each taxpayer is subsidising the cost of motoring by.

You can't can't seem to comprehend that on a venn diagram "taxpayer" and "motorist" are not exclusive sets.

And if you still think road spending is somehow ringfenced and paid for by "the motorist", I presume that means you think people who don't drive shouldn't be able to benefit from the road network as they don't pay for it? Like, maybe delivery companies shouldn't deliver to them?

This is precisely why what was a "road tax" was abolished in 1937.

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as ... road-fund/

Please read what I said ,and then comment again . I close the gap well before the cyclist gets anywhere near it( any chance of causing danger to the idiot and I will stop to let them get in front ,so that i can see them) . Two reasons, I've seen some so called cyclists try to get through between a car in the middle of this sopt ,where the lanes are narrow , and give up . If the cyclist is desperate to filter inside me ,he has to use the pavement ,and come back in front of me .That way I will see him . I'm not talking about normal cyclists ,who seem to recognise that this junction is dangerous and hold back. I'm talking about the idiots who view the pavement as a secondary road ,for their use only .

Perhaps you might just like to address your last bit to the "cyclists" ,who try to "filter" through as gap too narrow for them - it's their lack of judgement that will end up putting them in hospital ,and my car in garage for a repair at my expense .it's the same as something I remember you agree with ( and seem to remember you admit to doing) - come to a place on the road you judge too narrow for two vehicles to get through side by side ,you close up to the centre of the road .Again ,note my use of "two wheeled kami kazi" - I find that cyclists on normal bikes ,with headgear and hi viz never try this on . They realise not to attempt to get in the blind side.
And before I get flamed again -have a look at the location .



And then be amazed that any person in sa sane mind would attempt to get through tis gap .But I've seem some try, that's why I close the gap .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Oh please Weepy! I had a quick skim through that Guardian article...

The first thing that sprang out at me is that it was commissioned by the green party... so that'll be unbiassed then:roll:

The next thing that leapt out at me was this bit:

"The figures deliberately do not offset motoring-connected taxes unless they are specifically ringfenced for car use, for example a motorway toll where the money is set aside for highway maintenance. The authors argue that other motoring levies form part of the general tax pot and are no more reserved for the impact of cars than alcohol duties are reserved for healthcare or policing drink-fuelled disorder."

Which raised a smile. Talk about having your cake and eating it!

And unless I'm mistaken, I bet it never even dreamed of factoring-in the costs of doing away with road transport altogether! I bet it won't have taken into account the tax paid on the wages of those employed (directly or indirectly) in the car industry (after all, it seemed to take precious little account of any other motoring-related taxes other than road tolls (and even then, only the road tolls that were ringfenced to be used exclusively for road repairs...)!

Slice it any way you like, the man driving the car IS paying more tax than the same man riding a bike.

Oh, and while I don't agree with everything the UKIP guy says, full marks to him for at least being honest and candid! The other candidates are really funny, trying to appeal to the cycling lobby!

Really? A guy getting paid £120 grand a year who cycles to work is paying less tax that a guy getting paid £30 grand a year who drives to work?

Wow.