A consultant orthopaedic surgeon has made the case for active travel being the “best buy” for improving people’s health, publishing a piece in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) arguing that encouraging more cycling and walking journeys should be a priority in the United Kingdom — with better communication of the Highway Code changes designed to protect vulnerable road users, and wider implementation of 20mph speed limits two of her suggestions for helping to “challenge the UK’s car dependency and enable active travel for everyone’s health”.
Professor Scarlett McNally authored the piece published in the BMJ, titled ‘Enabling active travel can improve the UK’s health’, and looked at research around active travel to highlight its health benefits before recommending policy suggestions for bringing about more walking and cycling journeys.

She began by acknowledging the “urgent need to improve the nation’s health, which worsened over the pandemic”, and noted that an “abundance of evidence and reports” point to exercise being a “miracle cure that improves physical and mental health and reduces demands on NHS services and the need for social care”.
“The best forms of exercise are those that fit into everyday life,” she continued. “Active travel is a ‘best buy’ for improving health. Commuting by cycling reduces incidence of, and mortality from, heart disease and cancer by over 30 per cent in a dose dependent manner and reduces sick days and depression.”
However, citing Department for Transport statistics which show that 71 per cent of women and 61 per cent of men believe it is too dangerous to cycle on the UK’s roads, Prof. McNally suggested the need for segregated safe cycle routes which, when provided, “people use them, as has been demonstrated in Paris”.

> Six in ten users of pop-up bike lanes in Paris are new to cycling, says city’s government
“In the UK, massive central funds are spent on major roads. Conversely, funds for infrastructure to support active travel are stuck in local council budgets, which are facing a £4bn spending gap,” she said before making “four suggestions to support active travel cheaply”.
Prof. McNally followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the public with a “bigger media campaign” about safe overtaking distances, and pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
Secondly, and based on the “horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture clinics” that get “exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed”, she suggested the need to “demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people are”.
1/2 A couple of papers for us nerds & some top data:
‘Active travel is a “best buy” for improving health. Commuting by cycling reduces incidence of, and mortality from, heart disease and cancer BY OVER 30% Imagine a drug that could do that.
But how….https://t.co/0W7OMH1EBp— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) March 7, 2024
Looking at the NHS itself, the consultant orthopaedic surgeon argued that the NHS should be “role models” and lead the way on a modal shift from driving to active travel, a transition enabled with pavements in all NHS sites, secure cycle parking, and lockers for wet gear.
“Fourthly, we need to link with other initiatives,” she concluded. “Every NHS organisation is required to deliver a ‘green plan’. Active travel reduces pollution, which causes catastrophic ill health and harms the planet. Children getting to school under their own steam has huge benefits. Many families cannot afford a second car or live in transport poverty. People being able to get about safely reduces loneliness. Let’s challenge the UK’s car dependency and enable active travel for everyone’s health.”

In January, we reported new research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology which found that commuting by bike can improve mental health, with those who cycle to work less likely to be prescribed antidepressants.
“This work suggests that cycle commuting is causally related to reduced mental ill-health and provides further evidence in support of the promotion of active travel to encourage commuters travelling shorter distances to shift to cycle commutes,” the University of Edinburgh researchers concluded.
Later in the same month, new research by the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm, and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that boosting cardiorespiratory fitness by three per cent in a year was linked to a 35 per cent lower risk of developing prostate cancer.




















163 thoughts on “Better knowledge of Highway Code changes to protect cyclists and more 20mph speed limits recommended by professor who argues active travel is “best buy” for improving nation’s health”
From dietry problems to
From dietry problems to general behaviour, we are not interested in taking responsibility for our own actions. Why would anyone buy into reducing the driving experience for better health when it’s everyone else that’s the problem and there’s always someone else to provide the solution?
I agree. It’s a real shame.
I agree. It’s a real shame.
However, the essential economics(fucked) and demographics (ageing and fucked) of the UK mean that more investment in preventative health is going to be necessary. It’s crazy to spend billions on treating chronic long-term diseases when a few non-invasive, easily achievable lifestyle changes could avoid or hugely delay their onset in the first place.
Trouble is, the current bunch of Tory cvnts calling themselves a government probably think that good health is “woke” or something.
Eton Rifle wrote:
https://logans-run.fandom.com/wiki/Carousel
Eton Rifle wrote:
The Tories have got nothing against people enjoying good health, as long as their mates are making a bunch of profit from it. What they really don’t like is poor people being healthy – I mean what’s the point of earning loads of money by exploiting others unless you can also live longer?
That’s why they’re claiming to be the party of the motorist as they want the population to be sedentary and the air and water to be toxic.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Meanwhile in Labour run Wales:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68563371
Rich_cb wrote:
That doesn’t surprise me. It seems like a common trope for people/businesses to “donate” money when in fact it’s closer to bribing politicians.
I think Labour should donate that money to green charities to make a stand against politicians being “bought”.
Don’t hold your breath.
Don’t hold your breath.
Unless you’re cycling past one of Gething’s friend’s facilities of course.
I’m glad you brought that up,
I’m glad you brought that up, I have now completely forgotten about the scale of corruption in england and can sleep safe in the knowledge that everything is peachy there.
I live in Wales and endure
I live in Wales and endure governance by Welsh Labour.
When anything is blamed on the Conservative government it’s useful to remember that Labour’s record in Wales over the same period is usually worse.
Health. Education. The Environment. Etc.
But but according to Welsh
But but according to Welsh Conservatives (several times) there’s no *way* they’d have done anything for cycling and certainly nothing like the general residential default speed adjustment to 20mph.
It’s perhaps hard to take the party pronouncements at face value given a) they’re in opposition and b) a Conservative Wales seems unlikely (but red wall Tories happened…).
However that’s pretty consistent with the Conservative parties’ policy noises overall – little interest in addressing the issues of roads. To be fair this is more or less the standard policy of all major parties (with exceptions like Welsh 20mph or increased active travel budget in Scotland, due to Green coalition) .
I think there’s a general
I think there’s a general misunderstanding about the Welsh Conservatives’ position on 20 mph.
They oppose the so called ‘blanket’ change to 20 mph across previous 30 mph zones but support 20 mph in built up areas, outside schools, hospitals etc.
In reality a lot of residential areas were already 20 mph before the change in default limit and there had been broad cross party support for that.
The actual difference between the two parties is therefore quite small, not that you could easily tell that when listening to the politicians.
But if we already have a
But if we already have a default residential speed limit (a “blanket” 30mph) why is simply adjusting that number a “blanket change”? As far as I can tell few people (but including a couple of posters here – there is no “us”…) have been arguing that “30’s plenty” is bonkers and should be scrapped (either for “no limits” or “every road needs assessed “)?
Yes – you have to read political statements as just that (adjust for bombast). We (mostly) understand the reality, but I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for those invoking “I know I said all they should be shot, but obviously I just meant I don’t approve of some of their policies”. (And yes – that applies all political shades).
For reference here are their pronouncements – perhaps you have some links to more sober (but boring) actual policy commitments?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66977841
[ Mr Davies ] “Rather than take a common sense approach, they’re motivated by extreme ideology.
“In the past month, they’ve introduced a blanket 20mph speed limit across the whole of Wales.”
Earlier on Sunday the prime minister also described the 20mph speed restrictions as “blanket”, telling the BBC’s Laura Kuennsberg: “That’s what we’ve seen in Wales, from the Labour government there.”— BBC
https://www.conservatives.wales/campaigns/stop-labours-blanket-20mph-speed-limits-wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66802342
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68348709
It seems that their position may have adjusted to the more strident over time:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/tory-politicians-lambasting-20mph-limit-27480524
…indeed one Conservative at least had the opposite view entirely: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/tory-politicians-impassioned-plea-introduce-27813693
It was all quite depressingly
It was all quite depressingly predictable and the relatively minimal gains were never worth the risk of far greater losses IMO.
As so many residential streets were already 20 mph alongside higher risk areas like schools, hospitals etc. A large part of the benefit of the ‘blanket’ 20 mph limit had already been delivered.
We are now well into diminishing returns territory in my opinion and risk losing the progress we had made.
Rich_cb wrote:
As so many residential streets were already 20 mph alongside higher risk areas like schools, hospitals etc. A large part of the benefit of the ‘blanket’ 20 mph limit had already been delivered.
We are now well into diminishing returns territory in my opinion and risk losing the progress we had made.— Rich_cb
I think “schools and hospitals” are just the (important) highly salient tip of the iceberg – but it’s all ice. Doesn’t matter if you’re hit at 30mph (aka 34mph) outside a hospital, a school, a “high street” or a residential street. As others have said, if we don’t want kids to be seriously injured or killed on the way to school then only lowering the speed limit directly outside schools is at best missing the point.
On the broader question about “make a fuss, lose it all” – I am not sure *. Clearly it’s possible to get somewhere with “stealth” changes. Could we achieve large scale change / get to a “tipping point” via lots of little ones **?
Is it “slowly, softly” or really “change, up to a point, but mostly in the least contentious and thus less signficant places”? Can such an approach lead to ongoing change (not just “we’ve done 10% of the streets and that is enough, you’ve had your bread and circus”)?
For active-travel-positive changes I suspect “gradual change” essentially only keeps pace with “change it back again” / “build more for motor vehicles”. Also that significant change requires more “bold and contentious” moves – and change happens in sudden fits and starts. (This was the case e.g. in NL – some changes made it, some were literally torn up). But perhaps too early to tell with the “speed reduction” idea in the UK?
* I am sure it’s on those who undo the changes however and much less on those who worked for them (in many cases for their lifetime)!
** Cycling – having rather low cost and space requirements for authorities and also being low cost to users – may have the potential to do this to some extent).
Also
Also
National drop in average speed of 4mph where this has been done? Without even rebuilding the carriageway or deploying thousands of extra police / cameras on poles everywhere? Sounds pretty significant to me although of course your mile-per-hour may vary. Glass half empty or full – it’s not 20mph, but then culling the higher end of speeds is probably more significant in terms of “injuries in collision”?
On those roads which were
On those roads which were switched from 30 to 20.
A lot of roads including pretty much all the high risk roads by schools etc were already 20 in areas I know.
So whilst any drop in speed is a good thing the gains in terms of casualties etc are likely to be minimal as the speed drops will be concentrated away from the higher risk areas.
I might well be wrong and hopefully I am. We should have reasonably conclusive proof in a few years in the form of road casualty statistics assuming the policy survives that long.
Rich_cb wrote:
Hope it not only survives but catches on here in Scotland also (been rejected once). There are some small encouraging signs here like some *practical* movement on pavement parking.
End of the day, it is about choices – we can do the sums but we have to decide what, how much of it we want and if it’s worth the cost.
So “go a bit faster sometimes, which summed over everyone travelling could be expressed as a net economic benefit – and we’re happy for an unlucky few to pay a higher cost in lives and livelihoods as there’s a small chance it’ll be us. (And which – though most of us don’t think about it – we will all end up paying for financially)” . With a much more immediate political dividend of “we’re behind you, the users of motor transport, as opposed to that lot who are taking away your rights“.
Vs. “slower in the slow places, may take a few minutes longer for any given journey” but a gain of “nicer places, potentially less suppression of active travel (because fast motor traffic is unpleasant to walk next to or cycle among), reduction in casualty totals and property damage (with economic savings)”.
I hope it survives because if
I hope it survives because if it goes it’ll take all the old 20mph zones with it and I live in one of those!
I’m sceptical about the impact on casualty figures but time will tell.
Rich_cb wrote:
Lots of places didn’t have 20 mph limits around schools. People, including schoolchildren, live and move in all parts of the towns and cities, so why should they not be provided with the same reduction in risk?
And speed reduction in small villages is worthwhile, despite the obvious frustration of drivers often having to slow from a 60 limit to 30. You’d have no difficulty finding people in small communities complaining about speeding traffic, the difficulty of crossing the one road that goes through; small villages often don’t have the same traffic density and infrastructure which slow the traffic (lights, junctions, pinch points, queues) so I’d suggest that the limits are valuable there for slightly different reasons.
In the end the limits are only asking drivers to drive a bit slower in some places. The impact on journey times is negligible but I find as a pedestrian and cyclist the difference is palpable. Is that really so unreasonable?
Simon E wrote:
100% this. If anything the protection of lower speed limits is more necessary in surrounding areas, most people who aren’t psychopaths now know to be careful and slow down outside schools, and many have crossing patrols, warning signs and lights et cetera. People do drive encouragingly carefully around the school zones around all my local schools, but once they are past them it’s back to business as usual of driving 5-10mph+ over the limit, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of children still on the roads going to the school zones where they were just so careful.
You’ve missed my point.
You’ve missed my point.
By changing the default limit to 20 a huge political backlash has been created which risks the loss of all the previous 20 mph zones.
Those 20.mph zones were almost exclusively in ‘high risk’ areas where 20 mph would be most beneficial.
As those high risk areas were already largely 20 mph there is no benefit to be derived in those areas from a change in default limit which reduces the overall benefit of the default limit change.
Poor implementation and communication of the default change has put all the previous progress with 20mph zones at risk for little gain.
We’d have been far better off expanding the existing 20mph zones IMO. Those were widely supported by all political parties.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s simply not true, this from the Welsh Conservatives website:
Sign our petition for roads to only change to 20mph where appropriate, like outside schools and hospitals.
Clearly they do oppose 20 mph in built-up areas unless other factors are present.
Not quite. They oppose
Not quite. They oppose changing all 30 mph areas to 20 mph but support 20 mph where appropriate.
That’s outside schools, hospitals etc but they have also previously supported campaigns for 20 mph in residential areas. That’s what I was referring to by ‘built up’ rather than industrial estates etc.
Edit: It turns out there’s actually a set definition of ‘built up area’. Mea culpa. I was intending to refer to residential areas.
Damn that Barnett and his
Damn that Barnett and his stupid formula! don’t forget that just because I despise tories in england, see them as insignificant in Cymru, doesn’t mean I support Labour. Have you seen the conservative and unionist leader, RT Davies’s latest in that he’s promising the gullible that he’ll reverse ALL the 20mph zones back to 30mph, not the hospital and schools that put him in a similar position to Labour. All of them, he clearly hasn’t thought this one through either. Neither the practicality nor the cost, you can see his level of thought when he constantly lies about “blanket” (100% coverage).
This is exactly what I
This is exactly what I worried would happen and wrote about in comments on here.
It’s actually, AFAIK, impossible to reverse the default 20 mph default/blanket limit without reverting all the previous 20 mph zones to 30 mph. Each 20 mph zone that previously existed would then have to be reinstated.
A badly communicated/implemented policy from Labour now risks undoing a lot of previously good work that had cross party support. Such is politics. Hopefully it won’t happen but there is now a reasonable risk that it will.
Rich_cb wrote:
Highways authorities (either the local council or Welsh ministers, depending on the nature of the road) have the power to propose exceptions to the 20 mph imposition, so the Tory threat that they would abolish all 20 mph limits is unnecessary populist sabre rattling, they could simply allow what they believe are appropriate exceptions to pass and leave the ones outside schools, hospitals et cetera alone. ETA What’s preferable, start from a basis of all residential roads 20 mph and then look at roads that might be exempted, or start from a basis of all roads 30 mph and do the same?
That’s politics though.
That’s politics though.
We were already a good way along the process of choosing suitable exemptions from 30mph.
Labour bring in a 20mph default and now we have to start a new process of choosing appropriate exemptions from that.
It’s a lot easier to sell ‘scrapping the 20mph default’ than ‘considering more exemptions where appropriate’.
There’s now a real risk that we’ll end up with fewer 20mph zones than before having expended a huge amount of political time and a fair bit of money alongside it to go backwards.
We should have just stuck to the softly softly approach that was working rather well.
Rich_cb wrote:
Would that be the 2 year consultation period that Labour had built in? Or are tories now claiming that there is a new consultation period? Is this one of those “40 new hospital” things?
How can a manifesto promise
How can a manifesto promise followed by a 2 year consultaion period (which by default makes “blanket” a lie) be considered “badly communicated”? You’d have to be pretty stupid to have missed all that. Some might say, that the right whingers are doing their upmost to destroy the democratic process. What is it the brexiteers say? Suck it up? Get on with it? You have to do your bit to make it work? Or are these phrases for selctive use only?
One has to assume that everyone knew what they were voting for.
EDIT: I have just seen RT wanging on about 97% of 30mph roads changing and in the same breath repeating the “blanket”, which we all understand as 100%, lie. This is the man who tried to call out Drakeford with a point of pedantry. Like most tories, things only go the one way.
Hardly anybody knows what
Hardly anybody knows what they’re voting for.
Most people trot out to vote for the same party they’ve always voted for regardless. Elections are usually decided by a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Most of us are largely irrelevant to the process.
Labour are still polling well in Wales yet the 20mph limit is very unpopular even amongst Labour supporters.
If most people supported 20mph pre law and most people now oppose it then you have to consider that the implementation and communication involved have been spectacularly bad.
Edit: The difference between 97% and 100% isn’t really worth getting so worked up about. Politicians deliberately use phrases like that to divert the discussions away from the underlying principles and onto pointless semantics. Don’t fall for it.
That’s only anecdotal, there
That’s only anecdotal, there is also plenty of anecdotal that says that the 20mph is working fine and people support it.
A manifesto pledge and a 2 year consultation period, a damn sight more than the damaging brexit, but here you are complaining that you didn’t do your research and perhaps things should change. Clear numbers tell us brexit is a failure, there is no question that we were lied to, and that brexit was wrong. Apparently saucking up is that’s needed and everything will be fine.
Can you please pick a position on the knowing/not knowing being suffient? Then stick to it.
Final point, the number of 20mph zones in england and across Europe is a clear sign that the conservative and unionist party or right whingers have no problem with 20mph zones. This is, and always has been, an attack on devolution/independence. RT Davies has nothing constructive to add (to any argument, he’s a bitter, hate filled man) to anything.
But RT got extremely worked up, to blood vessel popping levels, with his pedantic demands for Drakeford to use clear language. Again pick which side if the argument you want, and stick to it (and I will continue to compare attitudes to this and attitudes to brexit).
You Gov polling shows
You Gov polling shows widespread opposition and the numbers are getting worse.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/07/14/874c7/3(popup:search/Speed%20limit)
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Results_BarnCymru_December2023_SpeedLimit.pdf
To get to that point with a previously popular policy shows botched implementation and/or communication.
The exemptions to 30 I was referring to were the pre existing 20 mph zones which were, in my experience, quite widespread already.
Lol at You Gov, about as
Lol at You Gov, about as reliable as an MP trying to get tax payers to pay for their stables. You do know that there was a huge spike of Google searches for Welsh postcodes for “that” petition, don’t you?
Have another You Gov poll where 51% would rejoin EU https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48260-four-years-after-brexit-what-future-forms-of-relationship-with-the-eu-would-britons-support Which You Gov poll should we act upon and which should we ignore?
Which is why “that” partition
Which is why “that” petition wasn’t reliable.
I’m not sure there’s any such evidence against this you Gov poll?
I’m sure that the market
I’m sure that the market research company founded by corrupt Nadhim Zahawi is 100% above board and in no way biased. I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something that makes me question the reliability and integrity of the tory and unionist party And again, an english market research company polling on Welsh issues is never a good start either. I’d add that there is nothing in that poll that says it’s exclusively Welsh, and still open to the corruption of the petition.
There’s the bit in the top
There’s the bit in the top left corner of the second poll which states it was based on the responses of 1004 adults in Wales?
In Dwyfor Meirionydd or
In Dwyfor Meirionydd or Montgomeryshire?
I’d love to see a more up to date poll too.
The more salient point being one of respecting democratic process in Cymru, but good to hear that you support all things You Gov polls and are prepared to get behind the rejoin movement. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45910-britons-would-vote-rejoin-eu
AFAIK that’s the latest one.
AFAIK that’s the latest one.
It doesn’t specify which part of Wales but I’m not sure that’s what you were really asking.
Nor does that answer my
Nor does that answer my question about rejoining EU, based on the results of a YouGov poll. Are Yougov polls reliable or not?
Or the fact that this is a simple attack on Welsh politics by the conservative and unionist party. We all know the proliferation of 20mph zones in england.
20 mph zones were supported
20 mph zones were supported by Welsh Conservatives too. Blanket/97% switch from 30 to 20 was not.
I think they’re as reliable as any other major pollsters. No major political decisions should be made based on a poll but they are usually a reasonable indicator of how a democratic vote will go.
1. Why are you still trying
1. Why are you still trying to shoehorn “blanket” into the discussion, if 4% was a big enough marging for brexit, 3% is good enough here, especially for a pedant like RT Davies.
2. There’s no such thing as the Welsh Conservatives, it’s the conservative and unionist party in Cymru.
3. They knew what they were voting for, suck it up, move on, the people have spoken, no one is interested, etc.
1. Just to annoy you. Blanket
1. Just to annoy you. Blanket success so far.
2. https://www.conservatives.wales/
3. When even a majority of Labour’s own supporters now oppose the policy the temptation to reverse course becomes ever greater.
it doesn’t annoy me, it just
it doesn’t annoy me, it just makes the people that misuse the term as much a liar as RT Davies. And we all know he’s just a noisy insignificance in Cyrmu, even his english overlords have no respect for him.
Why do you insist on showing me the lies from the prepetrators of the lies as if you think that it is suddenly a representation of the truth? It’s not the first time, is it?
And, of course, point three applies directly to brexit. Something you refuse to address for some reason. Can’t think what.
It certainly seems like it
It certainly seems like it annoys you, you’ve mentioned it incessantly. Almost a blanket approach, maybe nearer 97% but who’s counting right?
They call themselves the “Welsh Conservatives”. The press refer to them as the “Welsh Conservatives” and IIRC that’s what it says on the ballot paper too. But I’m sure on a pedantic level you’re absolutely correct…
You want to change the subject of discussion. I don’t.
Probably best to avoid the
Probably best to avoid the disasterous brexit, must be a bit embarrasing fot you.
EDIT: I can see why you’d think that two different monumental government decisions followed by public backlash, with YOuGov polls to offer supporting evidence, are two completely different topics. I can fully see why you believe a Labour decision, which demonstrably saves lives and reduces pollution, must be challenged and democracy overturned ensuring the involuntary union is not broken up, while an advisory referendum offered by the tories must be adhered to in spite of a wholesale change of minds and clear destruction of the economy, society and integrity within the government and ensures that the wishes of westminster are aplied to the Scots, and the Welsh ensuring the involuntary union is kept under english control. The similarities must be too few to comprehend. This is not an attack on 20mph zones, it is an attack on independence and democracy by a dictatorial english government.
Gosh, tories use Welsh tories, the good old press call them Welsh tories and a bit of digging finds that it’s the Welsh branch of the tory and unionist party, who’d’ve thought a tory would be sucked into and continue the lie..?
It’s much like Bannau Brycheiniog, the refusal to use the correct name says more about the people that refuse, and as stated, it’s a lie, as you admit.
You have nothing constructive to add, to I’ll allow you to leave.
Remind me, do you actually
Remind me, do you actually live in Wales?
Or are you one of those nationalists who can’t even bring himself to reside in the country he apparently loves so much?
Welsh Conservatives is the name used to refer to the party by virtually everybody including on official election paperwork. It’s therefore entirely reasonable to use that title and in no way misleading or dishonest.
By your own standards though referring to them as ‘Tories’ is also a lie. That’s not their official title and isn’t used on any official paperwork.
Who’d have somebody that simultaneously wants independence from one political union but despises those who wanted independence from another could be so hypocritical…
I am a Welshman who can trace
I am a Welshman who can trace his family roots way back in to the history of Cymru, currently I travel, so I don’t actually live anywhere. Are you going to try and tell me it’s none of my business?
tory is probably a historically more accurate name than conservative, but you keep on perpetuating the lie that Welsh tories are not just a sub division of conservative and unionist party based in england. It even says it in their title, ffs! Perhaps you’d prefer oruidhe or toruighe?
Who’d’ve thought that a tory wouldn’t understand. If an independent Cymru votes to rejoin EU, so be it, if not, so be it. However that goes, we will not be governed by a foreign country. But thanks again for misunderstanding, but that is the crux of EU membership for the unionists, they perceived they had no power in EU, which is bad, but can weild their power over Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, which, for them, is good. Big fish in an ever decreasing pond. #Bless.
So that’s a no.
So that’s a no.
The UK had power in the EU in the same way that Wales has power in the UK.
Lol at the unionist trying to
Lol at the unionist trying to tell the native how to live!
Now you are saying EU was good? Or UK is bad?
When your love of Wales grows
When your love of Wales grows to the point that you can actually bring yourself to live here please get back to me.
Until then your opinion is worth no more than anyone else who claims Welsh ancestry but lives elsewhere.
If you want an independent Wales come back here and help build it.
Actions speak a whole lot louder than words after all.
Rich_cb wrote:
Presumably you felt the same about all those expats in Spain who voted for Leave and indeed the current government? I’m not sure I can handle the new “woke” Rich.
Indeed I do. I’m not a fan of
Indeed I do. I’m not a fan of those permanently resident oversees having a vote on UK affairs.
I’m also a big believer that if you move to a country you should, as far as possible, integrate yourself into the community there.
From what I have seen, admittedly almost entirely via the media, the British expat community in Spain does not make much effort to integrate or even to learn Spanish.
It may be that the media presents a skewed version and the reality is very different of course.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I thought that a lot of expats didn’t get to vote for or against Brexit – or at least not if they’d lived abroad for more than 15 years. There were also complaints about them not receiving ballot papers in time even if they were eligible.
They likely would have swung the vote the other way: https://www.iexpats.com/what-if-british-expats-had-voted-in-the-brexit-referendum/
Quite a few expats retain UK
Quite a few expats retain UK addresses so they can still access SKY TV. They’re were essentially illegal immigrants.
don simon fbpe wrote:
How can they be illegal immigrants if they were born here? Also, I don’t like the term “illegal” immigrants – maybe “yet to be authorised refugees” is a better term – it’s not as though they’ve been found guilty of anything.
(Don’t get me started on companies geo-locking services)
“Illegal emigrants”?
“Illegal emigrants”?
I skim-read and had presumed the good Don was alluding to the prominent Brexit supporters who had backed Britain by choosing to pay taxes – or locate their businesses – elsewhere? (That article is almost 4 years old though so some may have come back to enjoy the Brexit Benefits locally!)
From an institutional perspective I appreciate that which the Scottish government took when Brexit occured – essentially “if you reside in Scotland, you’re Scottish”. Obviously this is a vast and complex rabbit hole (identity, rights and responsibilities, culture etc) but I think that’s not a bad start.
I would say that though, I only just arrived here a decade ago
chrisonabike wrote:
We could do with having two different terms – one for people born on a particular piece of land and one for the people living on that particular piece of land. Most of the time, I don’t see the importance of where someone was born (except for their culture and customs which can be fascinating), but it’s more important where someone lives and pays taxes. I’d be happy to consider anyone to be British (for the purposes of taxation/voting rights etc) if they’ve been living here for more than a year or so, and happy to go along with them if they considered themselves British/English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.
Illegal in Spain, no
Illegal in Spain, no documentation, even with Schengen FoM.
Rich_cb wrote:
Feel the arrogance of the wannabe english who won’t live in england. And trust me, I have done more to build and independent Cymru than you ever will. Why don’t you live in england instead of trying to anglicise Cymru? Come back to me after you get rid of the union flag, you are not Welsh and after all, actions speak louder than words. And still not able to admit that an independent Cymru is the same as a UK taken out of EU… Do you go on Hypocrisy.cc to talk bikes?
I’m not Welsh?
I’m not Welsh?
I’d love to see the reasoning behind that assertion?
Making up things that I am ‘unable to admit’ is really a bit desperate by the way.
Becuase you’re a unionist,
Becuase you’re a unionist, Welsh are Welsh, they are not a part of a “voluntary” union, unlike the UK joining EU, a point which, again, you seem to miss. Or have I missed the EU ring of iron placed in UK? I don’t recall the referendum result of Wales joining UK.
If you were Welsh you would want Welsh governance for Wales and not governance from a neighbouring country. Why would you want to be governed by the english? They’re making a right dog’s arse of it. I can’t think of another example where one country is willingly being governed by its neighbour, can you? We have Gaza and Ukraine, but they’re hardly amicable relationships, are they?
You may have been born in Wales, but you are betraying any Welsh hetitage you may or may not have.
Feel free to enlighten me on you effort to fight for an independent Cymru.
Ok, feel free to comment on whether on the differences between the benefits of UK leaving EU control and Cymru leaving control of westminster, you’ve already stated that they’re the same. You now claim to have the ability to do so, the floor is yours.
If the UK is not a voluntary
If the UK is not a voluntary union then how do you explain the Scottish Independence Referendum?
It seems that the process to leave the UK is very similar to the process of leaving the EU.
If the EU is a voluntary union and you leave it in the same way you leave the UK then what is the UK?
Wales will never vote for independence whilst we remain financially dependent on the UK.
I am living in Wales, raising a family in Wales and as far as possible supporting Welsh businesses in my day to day life. All of that directly strengthens the Welsh economy and therefore helps to move independence from ideological theory towards practical possibility.
Actions in Wales speaking a lot louder than words shouted across the border.
How is Cymru financially
How is Cymru financially dependent on
UKengland? Simple answer, it isn’t. Right wing press, something you seem to swallow by the bucketload, perpetuates this lie. The already mentioned and totally useless Barnett formula, free water and energy from Cymru to england, Crown estates theft, The £5bn taken for HS2 would have been better spent in Cymru. And finally, you are assuming that the cost of living in and independent Cymru should be as high as a mismanaged england. You have bought the unionist ideology.Are these businesses that you support independent and paying tax in Cymru or registered in england and having tax set through some bizarre estimation.
Give me a miniute and I’ll move my home into Cymru, you’ll not be able to try and deflect from your unionism. What a pathetic argument. You be you and keep on failing.
The difference between tax
The difference between tax raised in Wales and public spending in Wales is approximately £15bn.
Wales is a net exporter of electricity but roughly 3/4 of that is generated from imported gas. Clearly that’s not sustainable in the long term. Even in the short term gas power stations are relatively cheap to build so the potential for arbitrage over rUK would be minimal.
As for water, Yes Wales estimate that exports of our dwr generate £1bn in profits per year. If we assume that a future Welsh government could claim all of that we’d still be £14bn short.
How do you propose making up that shortfall?
How do you propose bringing down the cost of living? Countries with low cost of living also have low wages given that the two are intrinsically linked. I’m assuming you’re not proposing a huge wage cut for those of us who actually live here?
Rich_cb wrote:
By using accurate data.
Please share a link to such
Please share a link to such data.
Whilst you’re at it please tell us how you’re going to lower the cost of living?
Cost of living lowered by not
Cost of living lowered by not subsidising england and by not having corrupt tories funneling tax payer money to their mates. Something you are clearly happy to support, the corruption that is. Are you surprised that different countries have different costs of living?
As for accurate data, it probably doesn’t exist. No one knows with accuracy how the economy will look after independence, especially not a unionist. It can only be speculation, who’s up for a Celtic Singapore? Or Welsh speaking Monaco? Extremes, but you simply haven’t a clue and comparing to england is poor form. If you love it so much, move there.
So you don’t a really have a
So you don’t actually have a plan for reducing the cost of living.
Will electricity get cheaper? Food? Housing?
Would like to see that ‘accurate data’ as well.
Show me why it energy wouldn
Show me why it energy wouldn’t be cheaper. Housing is already cheaper which is why so many english immigrants come here. Food could be cheaper but tories are trying to scaremonger farmers into some sort action by filling their heads with lies over planting trees, or some other bollocks.
I have a bike race to watch and you really have absolutely nothing constructive or positive to add, go have your happy dance over victory over a Welsh nationalist and spend the rest of the day wanging off to your Brit nat mates. chao!
We generate 75% of our
We generate 75% of our electricity from imported gas. The price of which is set in international markets. Independence won’t change the price.
Any counter argument?
I have multiple family members who are farmers. Current Welsh Government proposals won’t make food cheaper. Replacing productive land with trees will almost certainly make it more expensive in fact.
Still waiting on that ‘accurate data’.
Obviously we can take
Obviously we can take advantage of that brexit bonus an buy cheap lamb from New Zealand. You must be so proud of that one, wasn’t it you signing their carbon footprint praises?
As for “accurate data” as the gentleman that I am, after you….
My numbers are from the ONS.
My numbers are from the ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2022#country-and-regional-public-sector-finances-data
I took a pre-COVID figure. We’re currently running a deficit of about £20bn a year.
You claimed ‘accurate data’ would produce a different figure.
I’m still waiting.
You have also provided precisely no evidence to back up your claim that the cost of living would fall post independence.
Have you got any?
Rich_cb wrote:
As I said, come back with “accurate date”, not your opinion or estimates. As I stated, this is impossible to do, yet you’re still wanging on about it for some bizarre reason. Given you don’t understand your own question of cost of living, nor previous responses, so this is getting tedious.
What will the tax revenue in an independent Cymru be? You’ll need this figure to ensure that you can calculate any deficit correctly? You will need to know how many english immigrants will move out. You do not have this information. You do not have accurate data to base current tax revenues, HMRC estimates.
Also come back to me with accurate revenues from water. Accurate figures for Crown Estates. Accurate figures for reshaped tourism. Accurate figures on tax rates (business, income and inheritance). Accurate figures for the shift in industry. You clearly have this information and are holding it back for the slam dunk!
Should I draw your attention to the levels of borrowing in england before suggesting that borrowing is an option for an independent Cymru? Should I draw your attention to the fact that any borrowing that Cymru has is gifted to us by westminster? Should I talk about Barnett again?
It is a waste of time trying to compare a future Welsh economy with the failed english one, especially as one to hold it up as something to aim for.
And again, surely another brexit of the chants is apposite in that at the end of the day we’ll be making our own decisions.
I’m also surprised that you demand this level of detail for an independent Cymru but sold UK down the river on a simple Yes/No referendum that was sold on lies. #interesting
You’re the one that promised
You’re the one that promised more ‘accurate’ figures.
I’ve produced ONS statistics showing an annual deficit of £20bn.
The ball is in your court now.
Either produce your own figures or explain how an independent Wales finances a £20bn annual deficit on a GDP of about £80bn.
I promised no such thing.
I promised no such thing. Bring the quote. I am fully aware it is impossible to provide, you’re the one trying to bring “accurate data” to the table.
You can’t predict Welsh revenues beyond independence.
ONS can’t provide accurate Welsh revenues post independence.
I can’t predict accurate Welsh revenues post independence.
Much in the same way that westminster struggles to accurately provide data for future interest rates or inflation rates. It’s imfuckingpossible!
Who could have predicted the scale of economic destruction from your beholden brexit? Not your farming family, that’s for sure.
Why are you demanding data, from me, that you can’t supply?
My position all along has
My position all along has been that Wales runs a large annual deficit.
I’ve provided evidence to back this up.
You claimed that “accurate data” would reduce that shortfall.
You’ve provided precisely no evidence of this.
Kindly do so.
Is that a promise of
Is that a promise of providing accurate data or pointing out that accurate data is needed?
Either way you’d still have
Either way you’d still have to provide some evidence that accurate data has not been provided even if you’re incapable of actually providing any data yourself.
I’m waiting.
No I don’t. You haven’t.
No I don’t. You haven’t.
I’ve provided verified ONS
I’ve provided verified ONS data.
If you claim that said data is inaccurate the onus of proof lies with you.
I’m waiting.
Which is not accurate, at
Which is not accurate, at best it’s a guess. I see why the Eton set call you low hanging fruit.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Evidence to back this up?
You’re a fucking child!
You’re a fucking child!
No evidence I’m assuming.
No evidence I’m assuming.
Let’s just take your word for it…
Rich_cb wrote:
Sorry, isn’t that you only vice versa, or are you secretly a Welsh nationalist?
I wouldn’t go so far as to
I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a nationalist but I would actually support Welsh independence if the circumstances were right.
Wales is currently financially dependent on the UK and making an absolute pig’s ear out of the devolved public services so now is not the right time.
From an ideological perspective I am in favour of Welsh independence.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Is there no such thing as the English/UK Conservative Party either then? Their official title is also the Conservative and Unionist Party.
But there will be once the
But there will be once the union finally collapses.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Not if you’re pharma shareholders.
Well, she’s not wrong
Well, she’s not wrong
The magic with cycling
The magic with cycling commuting is that you can cycle very little and still have very good health improvements, without any consequences, if of course none runs you over, and you don’t cycle in a poor air quality environment.
I see all these fitness guys, losing time and money going to gym claiming health benefits, but I am not so sure how more healthier they will be at their 80s compared to guys who just commute on foot or cycle.
I think the cycle lobby needs
I think the cycle lobby needs to lean more towards the “God save the king, GREAT Britain, I jerk off to a picture of margaret thatcher” frothing moron brigade. Everyone who cares about the environment and their own health would already cycle if it were safe and convenient to do so.
Cycling to work is the best thing someone who is a blind, angry patriot could do to improve the NHS and the state of the roads and so many other issues that matter to them. The bonus would be that currently a lot of those people are also football mini flag waving, close passing, phone drivers so moving them to bikes does a double service of giving their direct benefits and making cycling nicer for everyone else so can improve the numbers outside of that group.
“Cycle to work, for King and Country! Also, its super manly!”
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Even for the ladies ?
Patrick9-32 wrote:
But those people probably don’t like bikes because they’re made by foreigners* and the most commonly known places where people regularly cycle are in Evil Europe 😉
*So are cars, but that’s different (cos bikes).
Yeah – I mean, even America
Yeah – I mean, even America managed to make a patriotic UK bike…
Need more patriotic
Need more patriotic accessories.
Hang on – why isn’t Charles
Hang on – why isn’t Charles taking a lead? I know some of the kids were pictured about on bikes once or twice (bit awks). But how come some Johnny Foreigners have a cycling king and we don’t?
chrisonabike wrote:
Come now, how could you say this gentleman is not a keen cyclist? Actually I have heard that at Highgrove he insists on his staff cycling around the estate but drives himself around in a Land Rover or his Aston Martin. Which I think even as a keen cyclist/non-driver, I might find a bit annoying.
Rendel Harris wrote:
They do like a bit of hunting, the Royals, don’t they?
I’m actually a bit surprised they’re not down on cycling. They’ve got more form for being horse-fanciers I thought? Not a few horsists – and indeed some horses – regard cyclists with suspicion at best.
If I were king I’d insist on
If I were king I’d insist on being carried in a litter. I wonder if you can get bike powered ones?
You mean like this?
You mean like this?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Did he borrow that bike off one of his grand kids?
His saddle’s at the wrong
His saddle’s at the wrong height.
Maybe it needs new blood?
Maybe it needs new blood? Add to our immigration schemes – “you can stay here if you can cycle here”? [1] [2].
It should be great for promoting integration.
Hmm… but perhaps our (caring) new food delivery companies have already taken unofficial advantage of this idea?
That would be the case if
That would be the case if those “patriots” weren’t in reailty just great big hypocrites..
patriocrites.
patriocrites.
I’ve ridden and driven on
I’ve ridden and driven on roads with 20mph limits and I think they are more dangerous for cyclists. Cars can’t overtake, cyclists are exceeding 20mph, bikes are drafting cars, and everyone just gets bunched up.
As usual it’s looking for answers in the wrong places. Where I live in Berlin you will be hard pushed to find a single road that doesn’t have a separate bike lane. Roads are treated as places for cars, not people and bikes, and everyone is taught that from an early age. Cars can’t always take all the responsibility for hitting someone, unless they are clearly in the wrong. At the same time cyclists deserve to be protected in a way that doesn’t just penalise and put more responsibility on another party. Trouble is proper bike lanes cost more money – speeding fines make money, so it’s pretty simple maths.
And yes, I cycle but also occassionaly drive a car.
“Trouble is proper bike lanes
“Trouble is proper bike lanes cost more money”
Wait till you hear how much a road costs !
That wasn’t the point, but I
That wasn’t the point, but I’m happy to explain it a little bit simpler.
Bike lanes cost a lot of money so the Government looks at speeding fines instead as a replacement, which generate money instead.
Bike lanes: costy money
Speeding fines: makey money
Toowheels wrote:
I see what you are saying, but if where I live is anything to go by, there is no enforcement of the speed limits
Even if drivers keep to the
Even if drivers keep to the limit, how does that make cycling safer or encourage active travel ?
I was overtaken on my way
I was overtaken on my way home last night as I approached a speed table for the entry into my village’s 20mph speed limit. The van driver moved out to overtake me but then slowed significantly down as he went onto the table.
I didn’t slow down at all, and he hadn’t had room to get past me before the speed table, so we ended up going over the speed table side by side and he had to overtake me again on the other side of the table*.
*On the approach to a blind right-hand bend, instead
Toowheels wrote:
That makes no sense. If cars can’t overtake, that makes it safer for cyclists.
Not really. From experience
Not really. From experience it means that you have a car’s bumper a few feet from your back wheel before they see an opportunity to overtake at 21mph, which takes a very long time. I would highly recommend trying it out on some roads in West London with 20mph, you’ll see what I mean!
Toowheels wrote:
Well, I try it frequently in the 20mph zones of South West London, and my experience is that me riding at 20mph (or even over that) in a 20mph zone is that cars continue to overtake me. (This is also my experience of driving at 20mph in a 20mph zone).
Almost everywhere in London
Almost everywhere in London is now a 20 mph limit, it is indisputably safer for cyclists than it was when the limit was 30 mph. In what world is “cars can’t overtake” a bad thing? I’m a lot happier with a car staying behind me at 20mph rather than trying to squeeze through on a narrow road (most roads in London are narrow, or rather they have been made narrow by the outrageous size of modern cars) at 30mph. I’ve been riding +/- 10,000 km a year in London for many years and the 20 mph limit has been one of the best things to have happened for cyclists, in my opinion.
Rendel Harris wrote:
My only disagreement with your post is I’d like to know where you ride that the drivers take any notice of the 20mph limit!
Steve K wrote:
When they’re stuck behind me and I’m pointing down at the roundels on the road!
Oh and where there are speed cameras.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m glad I’m not the only one who points at the roundels!
I also point at the roundels
I also point at the roundels and my radar tells me how fast they are going !
Steve K wrote:
Hopefully nowhere
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Are you saying drivers should ignore 20mph speed limits?
Steve K wrote:
A couple of years back when spending a few weeks riding around SW and central London for first time since the 20mph limits became widespread, it was very noticeable how rarely I got overtaken when riding at 20mph.
This is exactly my experience
This is exactly my experience in south east Wales since 20 mph was introduced here.
Majority of drivers comply with the 20mph limit and will stay a safe distance behind me until it is safe to overtake, usually when we reach a 30mph or higher speed limit road to overtake, which despite what you may have heard does not take long as 20mph is not everwhere.
No way I would want to go back to the way it was before. I even made a 20mph sign out of felt and sewed it to the back of my cycling jacket at first, but have found it is not necessary as most people do not appear to want to break the law, so have removed it.
20mph is a big improvement here all around and my house has even stopped shaking and vibrating like it used to when the big HGV’s and buses flew past during the day.
Toowheels wrote:
When you say “more dangerous” you have to say what it is more dangerous than.
In the UK the current choices are “…than a 30 or 40 mph road”. I don’t think they’re more dangerous than that. The other current UK alternatives are “are they more dangerous than riding on the pavement (illegally) or waiting a few years for some really crap cycle infra (possibly a paint cycle lane)”. I think we can say no, not more dangerous than that either.
You may be very lucky in the UK and have the alternative of “wait 10-20 years and get a sub-Dutch standard genuine separate cycle path” but it won’t be part of a network and currently it’s likely it won’t do anything for you at junctions (which are the most dangerous parts).
It’s also worth noting that
It’s also worth noting that in places like London when the speed limit was 30mph, it wasn’t like vehicles could maintain that speed anyway. They were always stopping and starting for traffic lights, some vainly hoping that they’d beat the next red, so what happened was people would accelerate madly, then brake heavily. Some would do it even knowing they were stopping again soon, because they can’t help iterpreting the speed limit as a target, or a good given right.
Reducing the speed limit means drivers are predisposed to a smoother journeys, and I’d like to think less self-imposed pressure to over-take anything not accelerating away from lights at the same rate.
Separate cycle infra (mostly
Separate cycle infra (mostly not shared with pedestrians) and lower speed limits / calmed streets / traffic reduction – we need both.
You make some points about human nature (driving inconsiderately) and perception (cycle infra will cost us money!) which are fair.
However – as far as I’m aware and I’m conscious my knowledge is poor here – while Germany has some cycle infra which is certainly the envy of the UK that’s not a great statement. Modal share rates are the key measure. I hope to be wrong soon – but I believe that compared to NL or even parts of Scandinavia Germany doesn’t have particularly great figures here (yes – there are certainly exceptions [Bremen]!). Cycle infra is not as good but more importantly cars are still prioritised. [Berlin 1] [Berlin 2] [Leipzig]. Germany seems to remain a very car-happy country. Perhaps not surprising given the imporance of the industry
Further – as far as “drivers don’t share” in the UK you can be on a road with a higher speed limit but if drivers can’t immediately pass some will still bunch up on your back wheel. On the other side – in NL the majority of the “cycling infra” is actually on streets shared with vehicles, not completely separate. While people are definitely killed by drivers of cars there the numbers are low given the volume of cycling.
Toowheels wrote:
First – glad to hear you benefit from cycle infra. Is it the law that you are required to use it where it exists?
Misconceptions – but cycle infra costs money! Yes, yes it does – and good infra costs a lot more than (UK) paint and signs. However overall providing good quality cycling infra saves / is a return on money for everyone – including drivers!
As for responsibilities – while not total when you get into a car you have made a choice. (In our society we do not feel we have, but it’s true). So you inherently bear more responsibility – not necessarily all, but more. This is partly recognised by having training, testing, licencing and insurance…
…but driving is normalised, if not trivialised. In practice it’s not treated as a dangerous activity with a high level of responsibility. It’s more a club almost anyone can and will join (training and testing only once in a lifetime for most – a “right of passage”). It’s also a club many consider it’s fine if you sneak in (large numbers with no insurance and a surprisingly large number who have no licence / are banned). By and large no-one checks if you’re following the rules (due to minimal policing). Indeed indeed some rules are broken by the majority – speeding for example.
I’d like to reply to everyone
I’d like to reply to everyone but I think I’ll sum it up by saying that just focusing on speed limits rather than keeping riders actually out of the roads in my opinion is the wrong approach. Germany seems to do this better and in perhaps an oversimplified way, give roads to cars and bike lanes to cyclists, at least in Berlin where I live.
Both needed – more proper
Both needed – more proper infra and lower speed limits on some roads (along with traffic reduction).
It’s definitely not “keeping riders out of roads” – or at least that needs rephrasing.
As noted – even in NL cyclists are sharing space with streets people can drive on for a lot of the time.
If a “road” should actually be a “street” e.g. people are going to be walking and cycling there, it’s a destination (residential, shopping) then lower speed limits should apply. (There also should be less than the typical volumes of traffic we see in the UK in these spaces).
Drivers can change behaviour if incentivised (see NL, to a certain extent) so mixing can happen – under certain conditions. Motor vehicles always present a danger to vulnerable road users however so only “under certain conditions” (even with “careful, considerate drivers” – an aspiration!)
Agreed. And yes I should have
Agreed. And yes I should have phrased that differently. It’s not about keeping riders off roads, it’s about keeping them safe and away from the danger of cars but also in a good, rideable environment. As a cyclist I’m on the side of riders first and foremost – I’ve been hit by a car myself while on a bike – but I try to keep an open mind in any debate. My comment about 20mph seeming dangerous was just from my experience, and not supposed to be an anti-speed control sentiment.
London, since the widespread
London, since the widespread adoption of 20mph speed limits is way safer to cycle in. It’s fairly easy to maintian 20mph if you are a regular cyclist and when doing so cars do not overtake. Or very rarely. Of course if going slower than 20mph, then yes cars can overtake. Drivers overtaking and too often close passing is what makes cycling feel dangerous which prevents folk from riding.
Bike lanes do not cost money, because they actually save money. They are an investment which benefits society, so reduces costs overall. Public transport does the same. Driving however creates a large cost to society that they do not pay for. Despite all the whinging about the ‘war on motorists’ or the mythical ‘road tax’.
I definitely think better
I definitely think better education on what’s actually in the Highway Code would help a lot. It’s not just that not all drivers know to give 1.5m space, or what 1.5m looks like, but too many drivers get angry at cyclists for committing the imagined crime of ‘cycling in the middle of the road’, which they still believe is done purely to annoy them.
There would be a lot less anger at cyclists if all drivers understood why cyclists are not cycling in the gutter. It would presumably help their blood pressure too. A bonus benefit for the NHS.
The key to that understanding
The key to that understanding is to get more drivers out of their cars and onto bikes.
…yes, and the key to that
…yes, and the key to that is getting past “but I’m not cycling, because nobody else does and because it’s inconvenient / unpleasant / too dangerous because of all the other drivers“.
…yes, and the key to that
…yes, and the key to that is getting past the capitalist me first and strongest wins mentality. We’re in a complete vicious circle, where everything skews the wrong way.
In ye olde days there used to
In ye olde days there used to be government sponsored adverts on TV to influence behaviour and be generally informative. They normalised the wearing of seatbelts and rightly stigmatised drink driving.
In the 70s the Netherlands stigmatised killing people with cars, children in particular and this was the impetus to change the previously car choked cities into cycling friendly places.
If advertisng didn’t work, billions would not be spent on it
I suspect that the only way
I suspect that the only way to get people to read the Highway Code is to make them take the driving theory test again (or the first time for some).
She began by acknowledging
She began by acknowledging the “urgent need to improve the nation’s health, which worsened over the pandemic”, and noted that an “abundance of evidence and reports” point to exercise being a “miracle cure that improves physical and mental health and reduces demands on NHS services and the need for social care”.
This, a thousand, nay, a million times this.
The only problem being that the media studiously ignores anything about active travel. Over the past week we’ve had yet another report about the obesity epidemic, and all the media talk about is diet. LBC have had several features on it, and I’ve rung in a few times to put the case for AT, but despite being assured that they will call me back, they never do: the same happens with any phone in or media discussion. The BBC is especially guilty in ignoring AT, with hundreds of articles about obesity and health, but nary a mention of AT, focussing entirely on diet.
There have been hundreds of reports about the benefit of exercise and AT, but the media simply ignores them. What can we do? Picket the offices of the media perhaps?
The media like to focus on
The media like to focus on one or two things at once, and as much as I’d also like more focus on active travel, I’m pleased that there is finally some proper focus on food, and more importantly, the quality of our food. As the saying goes, you can’t run away from a bad diet, and the multi-national edible chemical industry that calls the stuff it sells food has for too long been allowed to get away with the assertion that they aren’t to blame and that obesity is down to laziness.
That doesn’t mean that excercise isn’t also important for health, but diet far more than exercise is relevant to the obesity crisis.
But just as we need governments to make it easier to eat well, they should also be making it easier to incorporate exercise into our every day lives via active travel. It’s not one or the other – it’s both.
FionaJJ wrote:
— FionaJJNo. The evidence seems to suggest that exercise is more important.
She began by acknowledging the “urgent need to improve the nation’s health, which worsened over the pandemic”, and noted that an “abundance of evidence and reports” point to exercise being a “miracle cure that improves physical and mental health and reduces demands on NHS services and the need for social care”.
And five or six years ago, NICE said that achieving the government’s cycling targets was the best way of tackling the obesity crisis.
Whilst you acknowledge that exercise is important, you don’t explain why the media completely ignores it, or even trashes it e.g. when Henry Dimbleby investigated the obesity crisis a few years ago, and he said many times that exercise was completely useless and it was entirely due to diet. The media were all over it, especially the BBC, with a Dimbleby and food together, two of their favourite subjects. Again, I contacted the BBC progs about their reporting and his mistake, to no avail.
eburtthebike wrote:
My belief is that for weight loss, then diet/portion control is the best method, but for improving general health, then exercise is critical (though, there’s some cross-over with obesity related conditions where a diet change is more important than exercising).
In general, it’s a lot easier for people to incorporate Active Travel into their lives than it is for them to forgo sugar-laden snacks, but it seems that we have big money invested in opposing both – oil money opposes Active Travel and food industry money opposes healthy eating.
“My belief is that for weight
“My belief is that for weight loss, then diet/portion control is the best method, but for improving general health, then exercise is critical”
A combination of the two is best. Diet control will have you lose weight, physical activity will make it sustainable.
marmotte27 wrote:
Definitely.
A big benefit of cycling is that your metabolism runs hotter/quicker for several hours after riding, so it can aid with weight management as long as you don’t use it as an excuse for scoffing loads of pizza
Clearly faked, there’s no
Clearly faked, there’s no pineapple on the pizza, squirrels’ favourite topping. You are that royal bint who faked the photo and ICMFP.
eburtthebike wrote:
The pineapple got eaten first
hawkinspeter wrote:
Wash your mouth out!
And eating the right things.
And eating the right things. Most of us don’t eat enough fruit and veg, and a lot of stuff packaged as healthy is anything but.
As an over 50, I have just
As an over 50, I have just lost over 6 kilos since Christmas, I haven’t rationed a single meal and have eaten when hungry, more importantly I have eaten whatever I wanted. I generally eat cleanly, cooking from scratch for most meals and I don’t have a sweet tooth. I lost weight during lockdown and again during my three months in Morocco. Lockdown came with an alcohol free 4 month period and 600km per week of riding, Morocco offered zero alcohol, very little exercise and a very clean diet of no ultra-processed foods. The weight gain came from work related meals and the alcohol that was accepted in such environments and a sedentary lifestyle where a crap diet didn’t spark one’s enthusiasm for doing exercise.
In my view, weight loss can be achieved by diet alone, the diet gets a little more complicated as you require certain foods to help with exercise and those foods alone may not assist weight loss (looking at you carbs). But a combination of not eating crap and exercise is also good.
But this is UK, government is not interested in the wellbeing of the population, pharma gets no profits from the fit and healthy.
eburtthebike wrote:
Research suggests that what you eat and drink is more significant than exercise, though both are important, and the exercise bit is not solely about burning calories. All discussed in a recent talk given by Chris Van Tulleken at the Royal Institution. 57 minutes and full of straightforward (but rather concerning) information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOTBreQaIk
It’s not just the media that prefer to lampoon and criticise cyclists, lots of politicians are in on it too, taking the petrodollars and other bribes and pandering to all the blinkered voters who drive and think they’re victims but don’t realise how mollycoddled & subsidised they are and don’t care about their part in making the roads more dangerous for everyone.
The evidence is that for most
The evidence is that for most people diet is far more important to weight than exercise. People who take up exercise in the hope of losing lots of weight whilst still eating unhealthily are doomed to disappointement.
Of course weight isn’t the only factor for what makes us healthy, and a healthy diet goes well beyond the appropriate number of calories. Unfortunately in this country most of us don’t eat enough fruit and veg, nor do we do enough exercise. It shouldn’t be one or the other.
I wasn’t dismissing the value of exercise. It’s important for many aspects of health, and even if it won’t directly make you lose weight, there is a case to be said that the benefits to mental health and feeling better about yourself will encourage people to be more health conscious and eat well. I’m certainly not discounting that.
But for years the industrial food sector has tried to discount the issues with their products, and claimed that obesity is nothing to do with them, and finally there is a bit of momentum to push back against that, and we shouldn’t let them off the hook by letting them use exercise to deflect from their responsibilities.
In France last year and I got
In France last year and I got a bit frustrated as there were days when I just wanted a quick and easy ready cooked meal, just something like ready cooked rice/beans/legumes that I could throw in with some meat. Nothing at all of that ilk in the Aldis and Lidls I visited, wall to wall proper food that need cook’s input in preparation. I quietly confident that there weren’t even frozen pizzas in the freezer aisles.
I find it unbelievable that the majority of supermarkets here dedicate so much shelf space to crap.
Aldi [here in UK at least]
Aldi [here in UK at least] have a good selecion of beans, grains and rices in a bag for around a £1. Ideal for bikepacking or 1min in microwave for a small meal/part of bigger meal. A meal in bag from outdoors shop will cost £5-6.
It’s also worth looking at
It’s also worth looking at the proportions dedicated to fruit and veg vs ready meals vs snacks etc of supermarkets of the same brand in different parts of the country and even different parts of the same city. Poorer areas have a lot more crap. There are regional differences too. I’m afraid Scotland does live up to the stereotype by having more shelf space for sweets and biscuits.
I was chatting with a student
I was chatting with a student this morning who commented that she could cook a meal from scratch quicker than it takes to reheat a ready made meal in UK. I don’t understand ( I do) how this country has fallen for the poor quality of food that’s on offer and lost the skills to feed itself healthily
Oddly, in Spain, I noticed more and more people buying ready meals from supermarkets and felt that they were making a statement on status, that they were too busy and important (and have enough money) that they have no need for buying cheap fruit and veg from the local shop. They did this with ciggies, the status symbol was Marlboro while those that couldn’t afford them smoked Fortuna (or whatever local brand was available).
Ducados was the deadliest
Ducados was the deadliest cheapo ciggie. Mercadona supermarkets now have a little área past the checkouts with a microwave, plastic cutlery and tables so you can wolf down your ready meal right there, in horrendously depressing ambiente. That this can happen in Spain makes me dispair for humanity
My first ciggy was a Ducados.
My first ciggy was a Ducados.
That’s not all Mercadona, is it? I didn’t see that last year in any of them. That’s horrendous.
“Six in ten users of pop-up
“Six in ten users of pop-up bike lanes in Paris are new to cycling, says city’s government”
I reckon that figure would be way higher if you checked when folk first started riding in city as opposed to first being a cyclist. Whilst riding around Paris before Mayor Hidalgo started changing things, very rarely would I ever see another cyclist. So even cyclists didn’t ride there. At that time way more Londoners rode bikes than in Paris and not many Londoners rode bikes at all.
People were horrified when I mentioned cycling in Paris, because of the crazy drivers. However I felt far safer there than I ever did when riding in UK. The lunatic drivers would actually be quite respectful around me as a cyclist even if crazy towards other drivers. As it fairly usual when riding/driving in France. Probably because their biggest sporting event is a cycling race and so cyclists are seen more as heroes than annoying roadkill.
I just want to know why
I just want to know why immigrants to England are called that, and not referred to as asian/muslim/african expats, a much less loaded term,. Those Brit expats in the costal areas of Spain certainly often don’t attempt to integrate much and can remain aloof.
Shouldn’t you two lovebirds
Shouldn’t you two lovebirds be watching the rugby ?
Milan Sanremo, rugby later.
Milan Sanremo, rugby later.
I can see why you didn’t want
I can see why you didn’t want to watch it…
It wasn’t very pretty. Milano
It wasn’t very pretty. Milano Sanremo was most enjoyable, I had an old mate racing but he wasn’t name checked this year and he didn’t feature anywhere, his team did though (they got plenty of TV time).