Labour to prioritise safe cycling infrastructure in 2015 manifesto

I think its so nice that some one is taking things so seriously? Everything is pink and fluffy and all issues will be resolved ever so soon.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!

How do you tell when a politician is lieing ? His/her lips are moving. Anyway an old joke but they're all the same whatever the political label. Bottom line for anyone using two wheels to get about
, this is approaching the time for maximum influence - get on to your mp, tell him/her what matters and why your vote depends on seeing action (even if it is a total lie - hey, it's not like those political whores don't lie to us so strike first). Tell them you want public proclamations of support and commitments - that way they'll all jump to outdo each other if they think there are critical marginal votes in it - seize the moment folks and squeeze them harder than they squeeze us ! 2015 is going to be a close election so don't let the opportunity pass

Liar liar chamois on fire.

So this is definitely something they have thought through carefully, and not some cheap vote-winner riding on the back of some unfortunate person's death...? ...right?

Quote:

Labour to prioritise safe cycling infrastructure in 2015 manifesto

Labour to jump on every bandwagon going for 2015 manifesto.

Fixed that for you.

Would second that, the above hits it perfectly. What confuses me is the number of licences the DVLA revoked based on poor eyesight to prevent the chance of that motorist causing death. Quite right too.

In contrast, when a motorist with supposedly good vision actually does kill someone they keep their licence, albeit with a very brief stay on the naughty step. Fail.

Anyone explain that?

As for the political aspect I'd also be highly suspicious.

I believe them...they wouldn't just be saying it to get votes would they, they say it because they love and care about us.

They had 13 years previously... next?

Oh my giddy aunt. Is that supposed to impress us and make us all vote Labour?

I didn't see significant infrastructure for cyclists being added to or improved between 1997 and 2008 when the country was having a boom and now all of a sudden that same party thinks it will find the money in more austere times.

This isn't a Party political issue and as far as London is concerned (I live outside London) it won't actually wash. At least Boris cycles his bike in London. Labour's previous Mayor said he planned compulsory helmets for cyclists and famously claimed he had never actually ridden a bike (or couldn't I can't remember which now).

Let's be careful of back of the fag paper cycling safety initiatives from politicians. They will do cheap stuff that doesn't affect their vote. They will be making cyclists conform to an agenda about helmets, hi-viz, insurance, training whilst not upsetting motorists ( I am both and so are most adult cyclists).

Now all of that with the exception of helmets (useless but wear one if you like) might be useful. But you can bet your last 10 bob that your high spec Gore or other high viz/ reflective won't count unless you are wearing some committee approved XXXL tabbard. It won't matter that you have a 300 lumen back light on your saddle bag if it isn't attached to the frame of the bag and you don't have a little orange reflector on your nice pedals.

I cite this week when even Boris (thought he knew better) started going on about headphones. Now don't get me wrong I'd never wear headphones cycling and would say to people that I saw doing it that i disapproved. But the point is that it was too easy. Cyclist get killed generally because a motor vehicle hit them. Generally not because they hit stationary vehicles or anything else.

The elephant in the room is the poor standard of driving in the UK (test not a course + experience) and an awful car/driving culture.

Only yesterday a spokesman from the AA came on telly to oppose adding 3 secs to the green man light on pedestrian crossing for old and disabled people to be able to cross. The old standard was from a different age of politeness and brought in when people didn't live so long. The AAs objection was that this would slow down traffic and frustrate drivers.

Now if you get frustrated by allowing an old person an extra 3 secs to cross a road so you can catch up with the back of the traffic then perhaps you aren't psychologically suited to be in charge of a motor vehicle. Why didn't the Beeb interviewer ask whether that was a problem with some motorists?

How much of the transport budget are they going to give to cycling. Until we see that number then it is just hollow promises.

I'm from Glasgow - we've learned to our cost exactly how far to believe Labour promises - up here we call them the Lie-bor Party