UKIP policies on bikes...

by sporran   March 1, 2013  

I've not posted on here before and not sure if this has been covered, but after being surprised to learn that UKIP have another policy, I thought it might be of interest to road.cc users that they have this to say in their transport policy. Note with particular interest point 10.6:

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 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

Unbelievable.

Source: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

23 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

we did cover it in one of our election specials, back then:

http://road.cc/content/news/16598-election-special-ukips-cycling-policy-...

Dave Atkinson's picture

posted by Dave Atkinson [7039 posts]
1st March 2013 - 14:20

like this
Like (0)

Unfortunately, it would probably be a vote winner to apply those ridiculous proposals.

Edgeley

posted by Edgeley [150 posts]
1st March 2013 - 14:24

like this
Like (0)

Sounds like UKIP is going after the Daily Mail reading voter.

two wheels good; four wheels bad

posted by cat1commuter [1301 posts]
1st March 2013 - 14:24

like this
Like (1)

Speaking as someone who holds a driving licence but drives once in a blue moon, I get mildly irritated when I read policies that suggest I need to go on some sort of "training course". No. It is the drivers who *never* cycle who would benefit from that.

posted by Tom Amos [203 posts]
1st March 2013 - 14:29

like this
Like (0)

..to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected

this is simply untrue. If you damage someone's property you are legally liable whether you're insured or not.

posted by qwerky [126 posts]
1st March 2013 - 14:48

like this
Like (1)

1. I will not be making my choice at the next election based on a party's cycling policy. You only get to pick your favourite smorgasbord.
2. I thought UKIP were libertarians (well that is what I understood they say they are, but not the impression they give.)
3. If by some eventually this policy is adopted (by another possibly more likely winner of the general election) I would prefer to have all bikes 'chipped' rather than paying for a little sticker that can be peeled off. A chipped bike would be easier to track if stolen and the technology is there for dogs.
4. If we have to pay a new tax, then reintroduce the Dog Licence first and get a bit of third party insurance for the poor Postmen having lumps taken out of their legs, oh and the dead children too, don't forget the little children!
^As usual some partys have their priorities wrong; I don't want to hear Farage telling me that a licence for my bike 'will cost less than a Rapha jersey' as justification why I should pay every year... and,
5. How much of the money raised will go to filling pot holes: none.

David Bowie agrees with me

bikeboy76's picture

posted by bikeboy76 [1052 posts]
1st March 2013 - 15:43

like this
Like (1)

UKIP are a truly laughable party. The front for (apologies for use of inverted commas here, but while we're on a daily mail sort of trip, why not?) 'acceptable' and 'respectable' racism and bigotry. Just another policy designed to appeal to nasty little people who like to live in fear of stepping out of their front door, lest they're attacked by a gay immigrant on a bicycle coming home from an abortion clinic.

Pathetic, trumped up wankers with no policy on running the country, only on removing liberties.

Farage can go fuck himself in a fire.

Happily the major parties are rather more progressive on cycling, noticing that having a decent cycling policy is a vote winner.

posted by bashthebox [528 posts]
1st March 2013 - 15:51

like this
Like (0)

Hang on, you've missed out 10.1,3,4,5,8 all of which all promote a positive agenda for cycling, e.g. combatting theft and promoting safety. As does 10.7.

I don't agree with UKIP on the other statements you've highlighted, but they've been a bit misrepresented here.

Not that any of these statements mean anything anyway since there's no commitment to anything here.

posted by 700c [485 posts]
1st March 2013 - 16:13

like this
Like (0)

Joke post?

And the compulsory insurance/registration/number plate thing has been done to death (good summaries by Carlton Reid:
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/why-arent-cyclists-requ...

Claptrap like this exists solely to appeal to knee-jerk Daily Fail/Sun reading morons. What kind of idiot thinks UKIP would have even the faintest clue about how to run a whole country? I dread to think...

Simon E's picture

posted by Simon E [1780 posts]
1st March 2013 - 16:14

like this
Like (0)

@bashthebox - sounds like you work for Rotherham council! Yeah dam those racists from UKIP for having a view on Europe different to your own!

posted by 700c [485 posts]
1st March 2013 - 17:09

like this
Like (0)

Like that the table of cuntents (sic) has cycling down as section 9, but all these proposals are in section 10.

It's also worthwhile noting that their KSI figures are from 2005 - a party truly with it's ear to the ground (and to paraphrase Alexei Sayle, listening to a lot of dog shit)

andylul's picture

posted by andylul [406 posts]
1st March 2013 - 17:43

like this
Like (0)

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with Cat1commuter and Simon E...both of you seem to think that the type of people who buy the daily fail and the currant bun can read! Big Grin

FATBEGGARONABIKE's picture

posted by FATBEGGARONABIKE [485 posts]
1st March 2013 - 18:32

like this
Like (2)

"a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others"

Yes, I shudder think of the awful scratch my bike and body would leave on a car after I was hit by one at 40mph, driven by a drunk, uninsured chav or a 104 year old pensioner with cataracts. I'd lie in my coffin wondering and worrying if it could ever be polished out cost free for the unfortunate car driver...

posted by fatty [63 posts]
1st March 2013 - 19:11

like this
Like (0)

In a single word: Baffling

posted by ubercurmudgeon [168 posts]
1st March 2013 - 19:48

like this
Like (0)

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

posted by bobdelamare [15 posts]
1st March 2013 - 21:28

like this
Like (1)

Oh, and I forgot to mention "Eastleigh"; 25% of the vote! How many did the Cycling candidate get?

posted by bobdelamare [15 posts]
1st March 2013 - 21:33

like this
Like (1)

Because it's a free country and a forum for adults. If someone wishes to demean themselves by the use of 'sailortalk' then they are free to do so.

Cake?

posted by 515 [16 posts]
1st March 2013 - 22:20

like this
Like (0)

fatty wrote:
"a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others"

Yes, I shudder think of the awful scratch my bike and body would leave on a car after I was hit by one at 40mph, driven by a drunk, uninsured chav or a 104 year old pensioner with cataracts. I'd lie in my coffin wondering and worrying if it could ever be polished out cost free for the unfortunate car driver...

+1 + a thousand times

How many drivers have ever been killed by a cyclist?

Also, this notion that a cyclist ever "causes accidents" is complete nonsense.

posted by Tom Amos [203 posts]
1st March 2013 - 22:31

like this
Like (0)

Yay, another reason to hate UKIP, apart from them being closet racists and general scumbags.

And 700c Rolling On The Floor

posted by paulfg42 [358 posts]
2nd March 2013 - 0:02

like this
Like (0)

I recently corrected an item in a local newspaper where it reported an 'accident' between a cycle and a car. I said it was a collision. The police had arrested the driver and I made the mistake of adding that something was very wrong where someone on a 10kg vehicle is hit by one weighing at tonne. Cue quite a lot of thumbs downs and stories about 'dangerous' cyclists. I was then told by a moron that of course it was an accident if the driver did not mean to do it! the idea of criminal negligence does apply to car drivers. Yep these are the people who vote UKIP.

robbiec

robbieC's picture

posted by robbieC [62 posts]
2nd March 2013 - 0:31

like this
Like (0)

Don't worry, UKIP are not intended to win any elections. They are just a distraction to diffuse the euro-sceptic vote. Nigel Farage is a Rothschild gold dealer and his job is to help protect the fascist EU, not to undermine it.

posted by Sanderville [192 posts]
2nd March 2013 - 1:44

like this
Like (0)

Revealing thread this has turned out to be - but actually I quite like that. Assuming we're all keen cyclists, you can hardly pigeonhole much else about us. We've got euro-skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and normal people Wink who don't like UKIP much.

posted by bashthebox [528 posts]
2nd March 2013 - 3:07

like this
Like (2)

My letters to the local paper about cycling usually provoke a negative response, especially from horse riders, who are a highly influential lobby here in the New Forest. Having done a lot of riding in recent years I have found that the majority of horse riders appreciate a warning such as 'bike coming' and great care when you approach them in high vis clothing. Horses are not intelligent, and having seen a few spooked by bike riders and runners I do have some sympathy, even though there are a few stuck up sorts who regard you as lower than the deposits which their steeds leave on the highway.

New Forester

posted by Forester [72 posts]
2nd March 2013 - 6:50

like this
Like (1)