Petition [was Re: New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety]

[Nick Maclaren]

What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
to have some effect.

I speak as someone who used to commute by bicycle and now does by
car, largely as a direct result of the attitude promoted by one of
those changes, and can witness that the discouragement is real.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 13/04/2007 20:36, Nick Maclaren said,
> What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
> proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
> will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Budstaff]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
> proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
> will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?
>
> If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
> get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
> to have some effect.
>
> I speak as someone who used to commute by bicycle and now does by
> car, largely as a direct result of the attitude promoted by one of
> those changes, and can witness that the discouragement is real.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Go for it! I'll sign.

 

[Adam Lea]

"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
> the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
> cycling - that would mean less income.
>

eh?

 

[Martin Dann]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
> proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
> will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?
>
> If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
> get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
> to have some effect.

There are only 173 signatures to
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

And be warned, the petition website upholds or disregards its own rules
about petitions at its own whim.

Martin.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]>typed



> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
> > the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
> > cycling - that would mean less income.
> >

> eh?


The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
rather less...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Tony Raven]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote on 14/04/2007 00:55 +0100:
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>
>> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
>>> the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
>>> cycling - that would mean less income.
>>>
>
>> eh?
>
>
> The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
> rather less...
>

But how many of us are car free? The tax they lose from me is that I
don't pay as much petrol duty as I would if I didn't cycle. But OTOH
they are encouraging low petrol consumption anyway through the VED system.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Patrick Gosling]

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>There are only 173 signatures to
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

And about half of them are from Cambridge, I suspect (guessing from the
number of names that look familiar). Which will, of course, be visible
to those collating the data, from the submitted postcodes, and provide
the "perfect" excuse to discount it anyway.

-patrick.

 

[Anna]

Patrick Gosling wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>There are only 173 signatures to
>>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/
>
> And about half of them are from Cambridge, I suspect (guessing
> from the
> number of names that look familiar). Which will, of course,
> be visible to those collating the data, from the submitted
> postcodes, and provide the "perfect" excuse to discount it
> anyway.
>
> -patrick.

But if the other half are from Oxford, we might be in with a
chance

Anna

 

[Adam Lea]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>
>> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
>> > the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
>> > cycling - that would mean less income.
>> >
>
>> eh?
>
>
> The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
> rather less...
>

But if we are to believe the figures quoted on this ng, and the figures on
this (Australian) website:

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

then the costs of motoring are greater than the tax take, so reducing
motoring should result in more income.

Of course the hyper-cynical amongst us would claim that if cycling ever
became a significant mode of transport then the government would find a way
to tax it.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
|> "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> news:[email protected]...
|> >> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> >> news:[email protected]...
|> >> > Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
|> >> > the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
|> >> > cycling - that would mean less income.
|> >
|> > The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
|> > rather less...
|>
|> But if we are to believe the figures quoted on this ng, and the figures on
|> this (Australian) website:
|>
|> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
|>
|> then the costs of motoring are greater than the tax take, so reducing
|> motoring should result in more income.

A great deal of the costs are inflicted on the public at large; at one
stage, I estimated that the car culture was costing me (in hard cash)
several times what I was paying as a car driver - and I was excluding
ALL costs that I incurred AS a car driver.

Building damage, the need for very fancy double glazing, the cost of
taking children to school and carting them around, and so on. It's
amazing how it adds up. Those costs are in addition to those incurred
via the 'public purse', and I didn't even incur the worst of them!

|> Of course the hyper-cynical amongst us would claim that if cycling ever
|> became a significant mode of transport then the government would find a way
|> to tax it.

Yup.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Niall Wallace]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
>> the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
>> cycling - that would mean less income.
>>
>
> eh?

Well the less people who have cars but choose to cycle there is the more
money they make out of their "Pay as you drive" tax scheme. (When they get
round to it)

Same goes for public transport.

Niall

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 14/04/2007 00:10, Martin Dann said,

> There are only 173 signatures to
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

Seem to be a few more now ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[stevo]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
>> the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
>> cycling - that would mean less income.
>>
>
> eh?
>
>
Pub bore, move on.

 

[Andrew Chadwick]

On 2007-04-14 09:40 +0000, Anna wrote:
> Patrick Gosling wrote:
>> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>>> There are only 173 signatures to
>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/
>>
>> And about half of them are from Cambridge, I suspect (guessing from
>> the number of names that look familiar). Which will, of course, be
>> visible to those collating the data, from the submitted postcodes,
>> and provide the "perfect" excuse to discount it anyway.
>
> But if the other half are from Oxford, we might be in with a
> chance

Um, well. That could be true, see, judging by the Oxon-CTC, Oxcycle and
OCW [1] names I recognise. It's up to 195 signatures now, but a few
thousand more (nicely geographically distributed, of course) would
certainly help matters. How do you go about publicising something like
this, again?


[1] Crazed bicycle-borne loonies, the lot of us; opinions expressed
to be disregarded at proper policy-setting levels, no doubt. And
very identifiable by postcode.

--
Andrew Chadwick

 

[Patter]

On 15 Apr 2007 22:09:54 GMT, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
> Um, well. That could be true, see, judging by the Oxon-CTC, Oxcycle and
> OCW [1] names I recognise. It's up to 195 signatures now, but a few
> thousand more (nicely geographically distributed, of course) would
> certainly help matters. How do you go about publicising something like
> this, again?
>
>
> [1] Crazed bicycle-borne loonies, the lot of us; opinions expressed
> to be disregarded at proper policy-setting levels, no doubt. And
> very identifiable by postcode.

Have a sig from County Durham. I support the idea of being able to cycle in
whatever clothing you want.

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email protected]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Patter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 15 Apr 2007 22:09:54 GMT, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
>> Um, well. That could be true, see, judging by the Oxon-CTC, Oxcycle and
>> OCW [1] names I recognise. It's up to 195 signatures now, but a few
>> thousand more (nicely geographically distributed, of course) would
>> certainly help matters. How do you go about publicising something like
>> this, again?
>>
>>
>> [1] Crazed bicycle-borne loonies, the lot of us; opinions expressed
>> to be disregarded at proper policy-setting levels, no doubt. And
>> very identifiable by postcode.
>
> Have a sig from County Durham. I support the idea of being able to cycle
> in
> whatever clothing you want.

Or even no clothes!-)


>
> --
> Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
> GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email protected]
> "Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas
> oven?"