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

56 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

"cycle training" is made up of moving off, stopping, steering round a traffic cone, and making sure you can stick your arm out without wobbling - how thats going to stop people getting flattened by trucks I don't know.
When I did it, we were actually shouted at for taking the lane, and even for riding more than about a metre from the curb.

posted by argotittilius [23 posts]
15th May 2014 - 8:23

7 Likes

argotittilius wrote:
"cycle training" is made up of moving off, stopping, steering round a traffic cone, and making sure you can stick your arm out without wobbling - how thats going to stop people getting flattened by trucks I don't know.
When I did it, we were actually shouted at for taking the lane, and even for riding more than about a metre from the curb.

The UKIP cycling training is somewhat different and actually encourages riding in a primary position. Well, the far right anyway...

posted by farrell [1579 posts]
15th May 2014 - 8:32

12 Likes

Just to add "cyclists Dismount" signs are advisory, not mandatory anyway, so there cant be any enforcement.

posted by lolol [129 posts]
15th May 2014 - 12:28

127 Likes

wow, their caveman like ideas are scary. they are literally a party from the dark ages

Feel the fear and do it anyway

hood's picture

posted by hood [117 posts]
15th May 2014 - 12:40

128 Likes

bobdelamare wrote:
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?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

zanf's picture

posted by zanf [603 posts]
15th May 2014 - 12:48

133 Likes

UKIP are to the UK what the Tea Party is to the US. They thrive on small-minded, little-England, NIMBY fears and profess bold solutions regardless of long-term social damage. Worst still, they don't actually need to gain power in order to disrupt progress - the fear of their popularity is drawing a centrist Tory party ever rightward.
The coalition doesn't have many fans because consensus politics requires small steps and negotiated progress, but the only sustainable way we can move away from a two party Punch and Judy stalemate will be through local, national and international consensus.
Im not a huge fan of Stewart Lee, but his recent gag about UKIP as a protest vote hits the nail on the head http://pic.twitter.com/5UKWxE9MGu

dafyddp's picture

posted by dafyddp [179 posts]
15th May 2014 - 13:09

128 Likes

Forester wrote:
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

Are you suggesting that one should approach UKIP members in the same way?

posted by surly_by_name [177 posts]
15th May 2014 - 13:18

127 Likes

zanf wrote:
bobdelamare wrote:
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?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

posted by surly_by_name [177 posts]
15th May 2014 - 13:22

125 Likes

surly_by_name wrote:
zanf wrote:
bobdelamare wrote:
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?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

Anyway, its news to me that UKIP even have any policies. Hasn't Farage already declared they are all now cancelled?

They seem to be more of a 'mood' than a party with policies.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [746 posts]
15th May 2014 - 13:44

128 Likes

This is a shame, because I am a racist but I am also a cyclist. NOW who do I vote for?

posted by deblemund [163 posts]
15th May 2014 - 14:07

134 Likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:
This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:
Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

zanf's picture

posted by zanf [603 posts]
15th May 2014 - 14:26

124 Likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

For what it's worth, both the EU Charter and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognise a right to freedom of movement. I began writing a long and quite involved response and then I realised I was doing it too - so I stopped. I don't have a stance. This is a website. For cycling enthusiasts. While I expect a generally pro cycling attitude to prevail, I don't have time for extremist views including because they are very tedious. There is sooooooo much more wrong with UKIP than their policy on bicycles. Can we get back to bikes now?

posted by surly_by_name [177 posts]
15th May 2014 - 14:33

128 Likes

zanf wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:
This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:
Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

You are a self absorbed cretin. Next time you get to the end of a railway platform and read the words "no passengers beyond this point", I would urge you to exercise your fundamental right to access the railway tracks, ideally immediately prior to the arrival of several tons of rolling stock.

If that doesn't rid the world of you at least you can vote UKIP and mean it.

posted by surly_by_name [177 posts]
15th May 2014 - 14:41

123 Likes

Oh dear, the usual "racist" slurs... yawn. As someone who will be voting for UKIP in the euro elections, I don't agree with their cycling "policies" (if indeed they are such) but happen to think there are more important things than a party's position on cycling...

posted by eurotrash [82 posts]
15th May 2014 - 15:03

124 Likes

'happen to think there are more important things than a party's position on cycling... '

well, quite. Like, are they complete racist mentalists or not.

posted by andyp [1067 posts]
15th May 2014 - 15:04

134 Likes

eurotrash wrote:
Oh dear, the usual "racist" slurs... yawn. As someone who will be voting for UKIP in the euro elections, I don't agree with their cycling "policies" (if indeed they are such) but happen to think there are more important things than a party's position on cycling...

Like their ability to get half-wits on board by screaming about immigration and pretending to give a fuck about the working class whilst fighting hard to make sure them and their rich mates continue to get richer?

posted by farrell [1579 posts]
15th May 2014 - 15:58

138 Likes

I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

posted by darrenleroy [91 posts]
15th May 2014 - 16:48

125 Likes

I've just declined a request to pilot a tandem towing a banner with Nigel Farage as stoker.

All Campag

posted by Flying Scot [670 posts]
15th May 2014 - 19:20

125 Likes

darrenleroy wrote:
I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

But that's just stupid, vote Green!

posted by drfabulous0 [403 posts]
15th May 2014 - 19:30

129 Likes

There's a telling analysis of UKIP supporters in the Grauniad: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/ukip-poll-fans-farage-mo...

wildnorthlands's picture

posted by wildnorthlands [29 posts]
16th May 2014 - 10:55

124 Likes

wildnorthlands wrote:
There's a telling analysis of UKIP supporters in the Grauniad: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/ukip-poll-fans-farage-more-likely-alienated-angry

I don't know why the Grauniad fixates on trying to rubbish UKIP. It's preaching to the converted. No reader (apart from a few weirdo's like me) are gonna vote for this party. The Guardian always fails to understand the reasons behind dissenting behaviour (unless those dissenting are Islamic). It's one of the big failings of the paper. If the editorial team bothered to take notice of some of the below the line comments it would soon learn that not everyone went to a grammar/private school and then were fast tracked through Oxbridge or a red brick uni and live within six miles of Big Ben.

posted by darrenleroy [91 posts]
16th May 2014 - 11:41

121 Likes

darrenleroy wrote:
I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

Yeah, probably best to support a racist party hell bent on destroying workers rights, human rights, the NHS and any hard fought rights just because you don't like the three main parties. Honestly, are you that stupid?

posted by egb [43 posts]
16th May 2014 - 12:32

135 Likes

darrenleroy wrote:
I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

Whilst I can understand your hatred of the three main parties, is voting for a bunch of fascists actually a sensible protest vote? Vote Green, vote monster raving loony, just don't give UKIP any more support. As can be seen from their use of EU money they are just on the gravy train but don't even have the decency to represent their whole constituencies. Who was it who voted against EU money after the floods, who voted against improving Lorry safety, etc.

mrmo's picture

posted by mrmo [1357 posts]
16th May 2014 - 12:44

136 Likes

Forester wrote:
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.

I live in the Cotswolds and horse riders vary, as all people do. However, I agree that there are quite a few who don't acknowledge bike riders who slow down for them and their steeds. Still, they're not as stupid or as dangerous as the life threatening drivers on the roads. While not exclusive to UKIP, they have the same mentality in as much as they believe they have an indisputable right to have it their way so that they can do exactly as they want.

Come the revolution...

posted by harragan [34 posts]
18th May 2014 - 9:17

123 Likes

The poster way above who objected to some one objecting to swearing really does need to think a bit. In no case is swearing in public acceptable.
Full stop, no exceptions.
This is an open forum and young people do read it. Your opinion (and mine) is subservient to normal rules of social behaviour . And Swearing doesn't fit socially acceptable behaviour no matter how common it may become.
para 10.2 is correct. Cyclists must become more responsible and law abiding. anyone who breaks the law is wrong. NO questions there. Rude and offensive riding is wrong.
No where above is the stupid and dangerous driving of motor vehicles mentioned so there is no place for this thread to have comments on that!

posted by mattsccm [280 posts]
18th May 2014 - 18:43

123 Likes

I actually find farage quite a funny bloke. Its great watching him twitch and fidget when he's asked any sort of question that doesn't involve his racist policies on Europe cos he doesn't have a clue.

The best part of it all though is that the great unwashed that think he's great and will vote for him seem to forget that if we get rid of "immigrants" who do all the menial and unsavoury jobs that the "Great British" public think are below them it will fall to the great unwashed to fill these jobs, oh the irony of it all Rolling On The Floor Rolling On The Floor

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2842 posts]
18th May 2014 - 19:40

125 Likes

mattsccm wrote:
In no case is swearing in public acceptable.
Full stop, no exceptions.
...
para 10.2 is correct. Cyclists must become more responsible and law abiding. anyone who breaks the law is wrong. NO questions there. Rude and offensive riding is wrong.

In the first... do you really think kids don't know how to swear already?

In the second... you are utterly naive in regards to laws. Laws addressing safety are there to protect. Non-dangerous behaviour, even if it's obnoxious, does not need pursuing: On the roads we have enough actually dangerous behaviour taking place which the police already does not have either the resources or desire to monitor and remove.

Also, you should probably read up on Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development so that you can have a somewhat less naive view on our legal system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_devel...

Not all laws are good, there's a reason we, for example, no longer imprison victims of trafficking for breaking immigration laws.

posted by jacknorell [569 posts]
18th May 2014 - 21:12

124 Likes

I think the Monster Raving Loonie Party has more credibility than UKIP. It's certainly got a better track record politically.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2308 posts]
19th May 2014 - 15:19

122 Likes

[[[[[ Cretins! Fuckwits! Shitforbrains! Moronic Arseholes! Look, the problem with "strong" language is that it's actually weak language. It's boring, juvenile and unedifying....could you abusive types (you know who you are) perhaps swop email addresses and insult each other privately? Or meet behind the bike-sheds after school for a rumble?
P.R.
[[[[[[ Er...that looks a bit rough, dunnit. Peace and love to you all.
P.R.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [305 posts]
20th May 2014 - 22:06

124 Likes

YES. UKIP have got something right. 100% agree to all of this (with some exception to 10.9)

posted by alexholt3 [52 posts]
22nd May 2014 - 15:37

96 Likes