Live blog: Halfords launch ‘first heated bar grips’ on new Carrera bike; Other Peloton ad suggests spinning on Xmas morning; Helyx ‘drunk bike’ steers from the rear; Infamous ‘Peloton Wife’ ad; Labour’s active travel plans ‘could be funded by VED’ + more

41 thoughts on “Live blog: Halfords launch ‘first heated bar grips’ on new Carrera bike; Other Peloton ad suggests spinning on Xmas morning; Helyx ‘drunk bike’ steers from the rear; Infamous ‘Peloton Wife’ ad; Labour’s active travel plans ‘could be funded by VED’ + more”

1. Whilst I’m very much in

   Whilst I’m very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don’t believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there’s no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • iandusud wrote:

     Whilst I’m very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don’t believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there’s no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

     — iandusud

     This was policy for a long time, the fuel price escalator, introduced by John Major at 3% and increased to 6% by Blair, and abolished by Gordon Brown, and it didn’t work.  Drivers are basically addicted and will pay whatever it takes to keep driving.  It is attractive because it seems to transfer the cost of a journey from capital cost to the cost of the journey, but most people don’t think about how much each journey costs or even the cost of filling the tank; they just pay it anyway, and don’t think much about transferring trips to other modes.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • iandusud wrote:

     Whilst I’m very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don’t believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there’s no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

     — iandusud

     Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of ‘freezing fuel duty’).

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • brooksby wrote:

       Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of ‘freezing fuel duty’).

       — brooksby

       I think that’s a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • kraut wrote:

         Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of ‘freezing fuel duty’).

         — kraut

         I think that’s a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

          

         — brooksby

         Except it will not bring an end to the attitude of “I pay for the roads you don’t” that the vast majority of motorists have. In fact it will make it worse.

         The only possible benefit will be a heavy fuel duty will encourage a massive reduction in short journeys and force people to active travel and public transport (reduces duty could be offered to bus companies the same way as you have red diesel for farmers). 

         Dad always said cities should have satellite car parks with frequent buses/trams operating all hours to take the strain off the streets from commuters. While private motorised traffic within the city by residents should be discouraged though you could own a vehicle and drive to other towns etc from your home. You just couldn’t drive to the next street!  

         The reality of it all is that the modern day vehicle is not designed for our street scape.  Infrastructure is already there. The solution is a simple one. You remove the need for people to drive two miles to the shops.  

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • kraut wrote:

         Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of ‘freezing fuel duty’).

         — kraut

         I think that’s a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

          

         — brooksby

         Very unpopular with rural areas, as due to bus services being axed, there’s no real alternative.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hirsute wrote:

           Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of ‘freezing fuel duty’).

           — hirsute

           I think that’s a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

            

           — kraut

           Very unpopular with rural areas, as due to bus services being axed, there’s no real alternative.

           — brooksby

           Well, as they say you can’t please all of the people all of the time. I’ve lived in both remote rural settings and urban ones. Each have their advantages and their drawbacks. I would certainly be in favour of heavily increasing fuel duty to subsidise public transport, which should include rural locations, even if it is an infrequent but regular service to nearby major towns.

   • iandusud wrote:

     Whilst I’m very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don’t believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there’s no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

     — iandusud

     Agreed, most people are unlikely to give up their car because the VED has gone up a bit, I use my car less if I can get away with it, but I require it enough that owning a car still makes a lot of financial sense over renting one when required, having to pay more VED wouldn’t stop me driving it as much, and wouldn’t make me choose not to use it over cycling, whereas a duty increase on petrol, while not great for those on lower incomes, would make me choose whether getting the bike out was the better choice.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • RobD wrote:

       Whilst I’m very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don’t believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there’s no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

       — RobD

       Agreed, most people are unlikely to give up their car because the VED has gone up a bit, I use my car less if I can get away with it, but I require it enough that owning a car still makes a lot of financial sense over renting one when required, having to pay more VED wouldn’t stop me driving it as much, and wouldn’t make me choose not to use it over cycling, whereas a duty increase on petrol, while not great for those on lower incomes, would make me choose whether getting the bike out was the better choice.

       — iandusud

       Exactly. Where’s the incentive to use public transport if it’s cheaper and more convenient to use your car. I need a car but try and use it as little as possible, to which end I built a cargo bike last year so that I can avoid using my car for local shopping journeys. However when it comes to longer journeys there are very few times when using public transport is not more expensive than using the car, for which I have already paid the VED and insurance, and that is when only one person is using it. If travelling with my wife or children then it’s just not an option. I would happily accept an overnight doubling of fuel duty if the money was properly invested in subsidising public transport and building proper cycling infrastructure. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. The problem is that the money
   The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway.

   What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Mungecrundle wrote:

     The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

     — Mungecrundle

     I don’t quite understand your assertion that it would be a problem because some of the money isn’t directly from VED.  Money for roads currently doesn’t come from VED, but vast sums disappear into various bottomless pits anyway, so no change.

     Neither do I agree with your assertion that it would all be wasted on bad infrastructure; there is some good stuff and there is no reason why we can’t learn from Denmark and Holland, and indeed, this is exactly what labour are proposing.

     Cutting the road building budget, not the maintenance budget, will be massively beneficial, as the only effect of new roads is to create more traffic.  The aim is to change the emphasis from predict and provide for motor traffic to modal change to public transport, cycling and walking, which will be massively beneficial to everyone.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Mungecrundle wrote:

     The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

     — Mungecrundle

     It seems you’ve given up on a better future already.

     The scenario you paint is possible (and given what’s happened in the past in this country, you are forgiven for thinking so), but it doesn’t have to be like this.

     I think the UK can achieve what other countries have managed to do, if the right decisions are made.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Mungecrundle wrote:

     The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

     — Mungecrundle

     It would appear that you are arguing that it’s not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

     Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic – then generally increase car usage. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • iandusud wrote:

       The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

       — iandusud

       It would appear that you are arguing that it’s not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

       Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic – then generally increase car usage. — Mungecrundle

       I tried holding them to account but old senile people keep voting the Tories in (even despite the Tories trying to kill them off by ransacking the NHS).

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • hawkinspeter wrote:

          

         I tried holding them to account but old senile people keep voting the Tories in (even despite the Tories trying to kill them off by ransacking the NHS).

         — hawkinspeter

         that’s because the Tories make better promises. Labour: free bikes for all; Tories: free unicorns for all, and no immigrants.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • iandusud wrote:

       The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don’t know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4×4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

       — iandusud

       It would appear that you are arguing that it’s not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

       Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic – then generally increase car usage. — Mungecrundle

        

       Fair comment, negativity is not particularly inspiring.

       If I were seeking for some kind of hope for the future on the political front then it would look like this.

       1. Constituency representatives voted for by the local electorate to represent their views in a Parliament designed to reach decisions on consensus politics and informed debate.

       2. Though candidates could stand on a manifesto of a recognised political party, a ban on the current whip system. MPs should represent the interests of their constituents to parliament, not the interests of their political party to the electorate.

       3. An end to general elections, replaced with a rolling calendar of local elections. This would get rid of the potential lurching from left to right every 5 years, the disruption to parliament for campaigning and the ensuing chaos of major policy changes as the winners attempt to “fix the damage” of the previous administration.

       4. Governance of the country based more on setting long term policy and creating efficiency by joined up thinking. Spending public money where it can achieve the best returns rather than spending for the sake of a headline saying how much you have spent.

       5. Remove the conflict perpetuated by political dogma between nationalisation and private enterprise. Some things IMO are better in public ownership (Health, education, transport infrastructure, major utilities, Royal mail, council services etc), some things can be better provided by being farmed out to private companies, yes even in the NHS.

       My vote for Green is, in my constituency at least, a protest vote. I’m in the fortunate position of not having to worry about my next meal or paying a mortgage (have been in the past and very mindful of those currently struggling to make ends meet) so the long term condition of the planet for my children and future generations is high on my agenda and I know it will have an impact on my lifestyle choices.

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. This proposal is the biggest,

   This proposal is the biggest, best suggestion about transport since John Prescott’s white paper, with massive benefits for cyclists, so I’m somewhat at a loss at the rather negative reception from some people.  Do they really not want improvements for cyclists or is there some other reason they denigrate the most progressive idea for twenty years?  I just don’t understand their response.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     This proposal is the biggest, best suggestion about transport since John Prescott’s white paper, with massive benefits for cyclists, so I’m somewhat at a loss at the rather negative reception from some people.  Do they really not want improvements for cyclists or is there some other reason they denigrate the most progressive idea for twenty years?  I just don’t understand their response.

     — burtthebike

     From my perspective, if the announcement is taken at face value without context, it’s fantastic! The problem is that in fact it’s just as fantastical as believing Miguel Indurain won the TdF five times clean.

     Zoom into the detail and it’s clear there isn’t any, just a promise of a wad of cash and a soundbite about ‘active travel’, which I take to mean that it’s not a plan with substance which would actually help us change how we travel,  like someone else said, it’ll probably mean lots more cyclists dismount signs and painted white lines. 

     However when you zoom out at the larger raft of promises being made by that Party it’s clear that it’s literally ridiculous, fix the NHS, no problem here’s some cash, tax the rich give to the poor, robin hood did it, re-nationalise the trains yeah why not, they ran perfectly in the 70’s and unions were ace to deal with, climate change – don’t worry, completed it mate and we’ll reduce the average energy bill by £400 per household.. nationalise buses and give free bus travel for under 25’s, re-open 3000 cancelled bus routes, railways – totally all of it in fact lets take HS2 to Scotland, public sector workers lets give em all a payrise 5% for starters for everyone, more nurses and doctors, yep we’ll sort that out no problem, we’ll just pay higher wages to attract the talent from overseas and start training up teenagers, social care’s a problem we’ll fix that by paying care workers more and means test all the old people to make sure that we’re not taxing the wrong types, doesn’t matter means testing costs loads, we’ve got an access to Scrooge McDucks vault at the moment.

     I could go on.. but I think my point it there, just in case.. In the words of the great(sic) Lord Voldemort “I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry you can’t dream big and I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles..”

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     This proposal is the biggest, best suggestion about transport since John Prescott’s white paper, with massive benefits for cyclists, so I’m somewhat at a loss at the rather negative reception from some people.  Do they really not want improvements for cyclists or is there some other reason they denigrate the most progressive idea for twenty years?  I just don’t understand their response.

     — burtthebike

     Because I dont believe a guy in a red suit with a white beard really does come down my chimney at Christmas and brings me all my presents for free.

     It’s not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Awavey wrote:

       It’s not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

       — Awavey

        

       You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up?  You can’t constantly look back at what has happened with labour or anyone else, all you can do is look at what is currently happening.  Otherwise they are unelectable, which may well be, in which case you’ve got to go start your own party eh. One thing is for sure, there hasn’t been a labour like current labour for a very long time. And one thing the world needs right now is current labour ideology.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • visionset wrote:

         You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up? 

         — visionset

         Well, sort of.  Like most election stuff.  All budget predictions are made on a number of assumptions which generally assume current behaviour and factors are unaffected by the proposals or anything else.  Hence, someone will say “Company X declares £50k of profift so I will increase tax by 1% and get an additional 1% of that £50k”.  This overlooks the fact that Company X might decide enough is enough and move its registered HO somewhere else, simply get a better tax advisor…or that general tax hikes everywhere else mean that people have less to spend on Company X so it makes less profit and pays less tax.  In the real world things are a little more complex than the average student bar and the number of uncontrollable external factors is one of the main reasons why all politicians fail to meet our expectations, unless our expectations are low enough.

         ​And one thing the world needs right now is current labour ideology.

         — visionset

         Well, possibly…possibly not 

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • visionset wrote:

         It’s not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

         — visionset

          

         You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up?  .— Awavey

         Well the institute of fiscal studies labelled Labours spending plans as not credible,as they did the Tories plans as well,so I guess we can all cite independent experts thesedays.

         Log In or Register to post comments

4. I guess 50 plus years of
   I guess 50 plus years of being promised a better future by politicians of all stripes has led me to 2 solid conclusions:

   1. Secure your own finances.
   2. Vote for the party that look least likely to fuck everything up chasing a political wet dream.

   This time around there’s very little to choose between the 2 main contenders on the fuck it up front so I’m personally going Green.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. I should state that

   I should state that politically I don’t associate with any party in particular, I’m more with Mungecrundle in my personal political leanings. I’m damn sure the Tories have a fanciful bunch of promises for us all too. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. This time around there’s very

   This time around there’s very little to choose between the 2 main contenders

   Did you read Laura Laker’s bike blog in the Guardian? Tories to spend £1.18 per head per year on cycling, and Labour £50.

   Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour’s promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don’t see how you can say there’s no difference between Tory and Labour.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • HarrogateSpa wrote:

     This time around there’s very little to choose between the 2 main contenders

     Did you read Laura Laker’s bike blog in the Guardian? Tories to spend £1.18 per head per year on cycling, and Labour £50.

     Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour’s promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don’t see how you can say there’s no difference between Tory and Labour.

     — HarrogateSpa

     Also, we can pretty much guarantee that the Tories are in business to just get as much money as possible to their pals and stuff everyone else.

     We don’t know what Labour under Corbyn would be like – maybe less wars than under Tony Blair.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • HarrogateSpa wrote:

     …

     Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour’s promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don’t see how you can say there’s no difference between Tory and Labour.

     — HarrogateSpa

     …but the main problem is that there are very few facts.  Just because a load of politicians make a load of promises doesn’t make them facts.  Take away all the unbelievable student politics stuff (fix everything by throwing a load of (someone else’s) money at it) and we are not left with much from anyone, same as usual.  Whoever you vote for, the government always wins.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Bobbinogs wrote:

       …

       Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour’s promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don’t see how you can say there’s no difference between Tory and Labour.

       — Bobbinogs

       …but the main problem is that there are very few facts.  Just because a load of politicians make a load of promises doesn’t make them facts.  Take away all the unbelievable student politics stuff (fix everything by throwing a load of (someone else’s) money at it) and we are not left with much from anyone, same as usual.  Whoever you vote for, the government always wins.

       — HarrogateSpa

       Oh there are facts, like the fact that the tories have been saying how fantastic cycling is for the past ten years and have promised time after time to fund it properly, but they haven’t, they’ve just built more roads with the odd crumb for cycling.  Their Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is a fraud, ably summed up by CUK as “very little strategy and even less investment.”

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • HarrogateSpa wrote:

     This time around there’s very little to choose between the 2 main contenders

     Did you read Laura Laker’s bike blog in the Guardian? Tories to spend £1.18 per head per year on cycling, and Labour £50.

     Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour’s promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don’t see how you can say there’s no difference between Tory and Labour.

     — HarrogateSpa

      

     Although, as mentioned in the other thread on this topic, there is almost nothing in their manifesto about cycling.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. You have to admire Labour’s

   You have to admire Labour’s chutzpah:

    

   “Cycling slashes carbon emissions, tackles air pollution,”

    

   that will be the very air pollution caused by Gordon Brown making a major government push to accelerate the adoption of diesel cars in order to meet carbon reduction goals. The same cars that have clogged the air we breathe with particulates.

    

   It’s the same with spending – they are railing against “austerity” but increased government debt by hundreds of billions even before the bank bailouts – which now costs the country around £70b a year in interest payments. Yet they want to borrow more even though we’ve yet to repay a single £ of what was borrowed last time round.

    

   And it’s the same with “privatisation” of the NHS. It’s one of their biggest political campaigns despite the fact the % of NHS spend spent on private providers has changed very little in the 9 years since they left office – with most of the NHS saddled with  crippling PFI payments that were contracted whilst Labour were last in power.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • ex_terra wrote:

     You have to admire Labour’s chutzpah:

      

     “Cycling slashes carbon emissions, tackles air pollution,”

      

     that will be the very air pollution caused by Gordon Brown making a major government push to accelerate the adoption of diesel cars in order to meet carbon reduction goals. The same cars that have clogged the air we breathe with particulates.

      

     It’s the same with spending – they are railing against “austerity” but increased government debt by hundreds of billions even before the bank bailouts – which now costs the country around £70b a year in interest payments. Yet they want to borrow more even though we’ve yet to repay a single £ of what was borrowed last time round.

      

     And it’s the same with “privatisation” of the NHS. It’s one of their biggest political campaigns despite the fact the % of NHS spend spent on private providers has changed very little in the 9 years since they left office – with most of the NHS saddled with  crippling PFI payments that were contracted whilst Labour were last in power.

     — ex_terra

     Don’t be pointing out facts to labour supporters, they don’t like it up em!

     Labour led councils have done precisely the same amount as Conservative councils with regards to increasing cycle safety, to making inroads into forcing motorists out of cars by taking away their nice flat/direct routes that they can do at speed, to forcing schools to not put discriminatory rules in the way of kids wanting to cycle, to allowing parents to park up outside schools, to providing ever more car parking and no facilities on new developments both residential, lesiure and business.

     Basically the square root of F@@@ ALL!

     If people think spending £7Bn on useless carp is a good thing then I would respectfully disagree, it’s worse than spending nothing at all.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • ex_terra wrote:

     You have to admire Labour’s chutzpah:

      

     “Cycling slashes carbon emissions, tackles air pollution,”

      

     that will be the very air pollution caused by Gordon Brown making a major government push to accelerate the adoption of diesel cars in order to meet carbon reduction goals. The same cars that have clogged the air we breathe with particulates.

      

     It’s the same with spending – they are railing against “austerity” but increased government debt by hundreds of billions even before the bank bailouts – which now costs the country around £70b a year in interest payments. Yet they want to borrow more even though we’ve yet to repay a single £ of what was borrowed last time round.

      

     And it’s the same with “privatisation” of the NHS. It’s one of their biggest political campaigns despite the fact the % of NHS spend spent on private providers has changed very little in the 9 years since they left office – with most of the NHS saddled with  crippling PFI payments that were contracted whilst Labour were last in power.

     — ex_terra

     Fuck me, what’s with all these negative waves?  Someone offers us something we’ve all been asking for for the last twenty years and all you can do is whinge?  What’s wrong with you?  Are you all DM/Torygraph/Sun readers?

     Last I read 160 or so economists had looked at labour’s plans and said they were credible and the amount that they are proposing to borrow would bring us up to the European average, so not exactly reckless or financially crazy.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. FFS… Shane Archbold will be

   FFS… Shane Archbold will be thrilled to be described as an Aussie

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. burtthebike wrote:

   Fuck me, what’s with all these negative waves?  Someone offers us something we’ve all been asking for for the last twenty years and all you can do is whinge?  What’s wrong with you?  Are you all DM/Torygraph/Sun readers?

   — burtthebike

   Self sabotaging Britons abound. It’s not like it’s difficult, or new or unproven. The Dutch even provide instructions. Spend €135 for the CROW manual. Do what it says. How hard is that really? You can’t expect change for the better if you oppose it at every step. All progress begins with a decision. Labour made the decision, kudos to them for being decisive.

   ——

   The Helyx bike is nothing new, they’ve just pinched the idea from the Swing dragsters around in the 70’s. The original looks much better.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Philh68 wrote:

     Fuck me, what’s with all these negative waves?  Someone offers us something we’ve all been asking for for the last twenty years and all you can do is whinge?  What’s wrong with you?  Are you all DM/Torygraph/Sun readers?

     — Philh68

     Self sabotaging Britons abound. It’s not like it’s difficult, or new or unproven. The Dutch even provide instructions. Spend €135 for the CROW manual. Do what it says. How hard is that really? You can’t expect change for the better if you oppose it at every step. All progress begins with a decision. Labour made the decision, kudos to them for being decisive.

     — burtthebike

     I’ve just worked out why some people are so upset about labour’s plans and why they can’t support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they’re tories and can’t possibly support a good idea from another party.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • burtthebike wrote:

       I’ve just worked out why some people are so upset about labour’s plans and why they can’t support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they’re tories and can’t possibly support a good idea from another party.

       — burtthebike

       A rather predictable response from your good self there Burt, no one could possibly mistake your allegiances.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • peted76 wrote:

         I’ve just worked out why some people are so upset about labour’s plans and why they can’t support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they’re tories and can’t possibly support a good idea from another party.

         — peted76

         A rather predictable response from your good self there Burt, no one could possibly mistake your allegiances.

         — burtthebike

         Predictable?  Certainly, and I make no secret that I support democratic socialism and a better quality of life for all, not increasing the wealth of the already obscenely rich. 

         It fits the facts; do you have an alternative explanation?

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • burtthebike wrote:

       I’ve just worked out why some people are so upset about labour’s plans and why they can’t support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they’re tories and can’t possibly support a good idea from another party.

       — burtthebike

       partisan politics does us no favours. Never has, never will. But there’s more to this, we now have an unhealthy scepticism of politics combined with the relentless negativity that the Internet seems to fuel. It seems people are no longer capable of setting aside their fear of change, their scepticism of the process and their habitual complaining to ask a simple question: is it good policy or not? Because that’s all it is – an idea of how to make a better society. It’s not legislation, it does not need to be fleshed out in detail, not until they’re in a position to deliver on it. It does need the community to respond. Too many good ideas die of apathy on our part. And if you believe it’s a good idea, tell your candidates. All of them, no matter which ideology they are aligned to. You never  know, in the event of a minority government they could be the decider of it happening or not.

       There is another aspect of this that isn’t being understood – politicians like big announcements and big projects because it gives them something to brag about. Cycling infra is neglected because it is comparatively cheap, and because we don’t think big enough. We accept the crumbs rather than demand a seat at the banquet. What Labour have done is turn that into a big scale project, for the kind of money that gets attention. Perhaps for the first time they have shown what it takes to be taken seriously. That itself is progress.

       Log In or Register to post comments

10. ” while Aussie lead-out man

    ” while Aussie lead-out man Archbold has also signed a two year contract.”

    Shane William Archbold is a New Zealand professional racing cyclist who currently rides for UCI WorldTeam Bora–Hansgrohe. He competed in the men’s omnium at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and won the gold medal in the men’s scratch race at the 2014 Commonwealth Games, along with bronze in the men’s team pursuit. Wikipedia

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • SNS1938 wrote:

      ” while Aussie lead-out man Archbold has also signed a two year contract.”

      Shane William Archbold is a New Zealand professional racing cyclist who currently rides for UCI WorldTeam Bora–Hansgrohe. He competed in the men’s omnium at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and won the gold medal in the men’s scratch race at the 2014 Commonwealth Games, along with bronze in the men’s team pursuit. Wikipedia

       

      — SNS1938

      the Australian constitution still says New Zealand is an Australian state, don’t be surprised if it confuses some people!

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. I did try to watch the Active

    I did try to watch the Active Travel debate, but the synchronisation failure after the first few minutes made it impossible, but I did listen.  Mostly predictable, with all of them promising a bright future for cycling, except for the tory, who kept saying things like “where possible” which as we all know, means virtually nowhere.  He also thought that £70m was going to transform cycling.

    By far the best offer was from labour, with the greens a close second.

    Log In or Register to post comments