“Politicians can’t simply ‘rip out’ LTNs and bike lanes they don’t like”; Cycle lane plans scrapped at last minute; Matthews life-threatening diagnosis + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"This shouldn't be remarkable": protected cycle tracks in The Netherlands
This shouldn’t be remarkable. Protected cycle tracks let primary school age children cycle safely on main roads – on their own. Every city can do this.
— Hackney Cyclist (@hackneycyclist.bsky.social) 22 January 2026 at 20:22
“Extreme weather. Santos. The irony”: Fire danger warning and soaring temperatures see Tour Down Under stage shortened and Willunga Hill removed – days after riders urged race to ditch “embarrassing” oil and gas title sponsor
Cycle lane plans scrapped at last minute after backlash
High Street, Ayr (Credit: Google)
Proposed plans for cycle lanes in Ayr town centre have been pulled at the last minute after South Ayrshire Council’s depute leader Alec Clark insisted on a revised design that will remove cycling infrastructure entirely.
The controversial plans, which are part of the council’s Acessible Ayr programme, were due to be considered on Wednesday. However, there was public concern that the plans retained cycle lanes despite public opposition.
Speaking at the meeting, Clark said: Due to further consultation and feedback, the report on Accessible Ayr has been deferred until a later date to allow for a redesign, which will not incorporate any cycle lanes in Ayr town centre.
“Cabinet will be updated on the new design as we go along, and to be clear, there will be no cycle lanes in Alloway Street, Sandgate or Fullarton Street,” STV News reports.
Councillor Clark said he has spoken to the director of Housing, Operations and Development, and agreed to defer the report so the plans can be redesigned.
The Accessible Ayr project is funded through the Scottish Government’s Places for Everyone programme and is delivered by Sustrans.
It aims to improve accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, while supporting local businesses and encouraging investment. Phase 1 of the scheme carries an estimated construction cost of £19.9m, to be delivered in stages over four years.
The council officers have already submitted a funding application to Transport Scotland’s Active Travel Infrastructure fund, with the council expected to contribute around 30% of the costs.
The proposals have sparked significant backlash, mostly focused on removing car parking to make space for cycle lanes. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock MP Elaine Stewart warned that removing car parking to make space for cycling would disrupt the local economy and could even increase risk to cyclists by forcing them into narrow traffic lanes.
Local business owners echoed these concerns, “Installing cycle lanes may be ‘politically correct’, but the reality is that when they impact parking provisions, it has a detrimental effect on local businesses.
“We do not have the climate to prioritise cycle lanes over cars,” Alleddandro Varesse, the boss at the Blue Lagoon chippy told the Daily Record.
The council maintains that no final decisions have been made and that redesigned plans will be brought back to Cabinet at a later date, while regeneration work at Burns Statue Square will continue as planned.
ULEZ... Ultra Low Excitement Zone?
Pointed out by reader Hirsute, the Chichester Anti-Recreation Society (CARP) strikes again.
CARP, who is “set up to add more fun to Chichester”, has previously put up spoof signs in the West Sussex city to make people laugh.
The one-man campaign put up a sign last year at a “bicycle redistribution point” after a spate of reported bike thefts from the railway station.
“I decided to create the sign after noticing just how many posts were popping up in local community groups about bike thefts, often several times a week,” CARP, who’s been described as “Chichester’s answer to Banksy” on social media, told road.cc.
“What stood out to me was that the overwhelming majority of these incidents were happening in this specific spot at the station, which made it feel like an issue that needed highlighting in a memorable way.”
“Transformational” cycling schemes saved NHS over £13 million, new research reveals – as governing bodies call for £30m “targeted public investment” to leave lasting Tour de France legacy and turn Britain into “true nation of cyclists”
Why did the duck cross the road?
At this time of year, normally I would be looking for icy patches of snow. Looks like jaywalking ducks are the clear and present danger. #cycling #ducks #bikesky Oh and why the hashtags? Seems the algo is hiding me.
— Biking Vandal (@bikecommuterlove.bsky.social) 21 January 2026 at 19:22
“If I kept doing the training I was doing for another two days, I could have died”: Michael Matthews on his life-threatening diagnosis
Michael Matthews congratulates Mark Cavendish after Stage 4 of 2021 Tour de France (Credit: Pauline Ballet, ASO)
Michael Matthews has shed some light on his pulmonary embolism diagnosis, telling Daniel Benson on his Substack that he could have died if he continued to train.
The Team Jayco-AlUla cyclist initially believed his problems were down to allergies, but as he struggled to train, he found it was far more serious.
“They said that if I kept doing the training I was doing for another two days, then I could have [died].”
“It was going on for a while. I was doing my normal training, and I just couldn’t breathe. I thought it was just allergies because it was happening all through the Classics and I was getting to the point in a race where I just couldn’t go any deeper and I wasn’t sure if it was a hunger knock, a lack of fitness or I wasn’t good enough but from one moment to the next I had to stop pedalling and it was getting worse and worse.
2022 Tour De France – Stage 14 -Saint-Etienne to Mende – France Michael Matthews (Credit: Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
The problem escalated during a high-altitude training camp in Livigno. He said: “I was in Livigno to prepare for the Tour, and I was using this allergy medication for my breathing, but it got to the point where I was doing these efforts that we do every year at the end of the camp, but after one effort, it felt like I was choking underwater.
“I looked to my coach, halfway up this climb, and was doing the ‘I’m dead’ sign, and he said to keep pushing, but I had no air in my lungs, and I couldn’t get my heart rate above 120, which was really strange at altitude.
He ended up stopping the exercise and walking to the town, which made his heart rate jump to 140.
“We went to A&E and did a blood test straight away, and they could see the blood clots straight away. We did a CT scan of my lungs, and they were like ‘holy fuck, this isn’t what a person your age should be like.’
“It was a scary moment in my life,” he says.
The doctors initially warned that his whole career could be over. “We didn’t know how long it would take to fix, or even if we could.”
“I had to stop and start again and again, but I had a really good support crew around me that kept me motivated. We did get the green light to start again, and that felt like I was reborn.”
Michael Matthews and Jay Vine celebrate winning the mixed relay TTT for Australia, 2025 world championships, Kigali (Credit: Simon Wilkinson/SWpix.com)
Now back to racing with a clean bill of health, Matthew says the experience has changed how he views cycling.
For me, it was more of a wake-up, and this feels like a second chance for me, and that this happened for a reason. It’s a chance to change my racing style a bit. The whole of cycling has changed, and I also need to change my style tool.
“My thinking at the time was that either my body decided that I had to retire, or I come back and it’s a second chance, so that’s how I’m taking it with all the clots gone. It’s a second chance in cycling and in life,” he says.
“I’m much more aggressive and not just waiting for the sprint all the time. That’s the racing that I want to do, and the team are going to help with that. We’ve built a team that is geared towards rolling the dice a bit and not just sitting back and waiting. It’s all happened at a nice time.”
Matthews is not the only high-profile rider to speak about serious health issues. Sam Bennett recently spoke to road.cc about a heart procedure he underwent in November.
Sam Bennett, 2022 Vuelta (Credit: PhotoGomezSport)
The Irish sprinter revealed he had been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AFib), a condition that causes the heartbeat to become irregular and often faster than normal due to disrupted electrical signals in the heart. Just five days after the diagnosis, Bennett underwent an ablation procedure to correct the issue.
Because he was placed on blood thinners following the operation, Bennett was unable to train on the road for several months, with doctors advising it took around three months for his heart to fully heal before he could return to full training.
Bennett also is returning to training determined. He said: “I just want to be in the races competing. I don’t want to be making up numbers, getting killed in every race. I want to be at my best level. And then if I reach that, then of course if I hit certain targets, that I get my opportunity in Grand Tours, or whatever it may be.
A central London street "transformed" by a cycle lane
Another central London street transformed with a filter and added gardens, preventing rat-running, noise, and danger. Chef’s kiss, London. Thank you, Camden Council, don’t stop.
— Bob From Accounts ? (@bobfromaccounts.bsky.social) 23 January 2026 at 10:51
Cycle campaigners fear proposed changes will put cyclists at risk
Duncombe Place, York (Credit: Google)
Cycle campaigners fear that proposed changes to York city centre street will put cyclists more at risk.
The proposals for Blake Street include a loading ban from 10:30am to 5pm and new signs to stop vehicles from entering during pedestrianised hours.
However, Andy D’Agorne, from the York Cycle Campaign, believes that signage, a loading ban and enforcement should be trialled first.
He told YorkMix that: “Signing, a loading ban and enforcement should be tried first, before the rest of the proposal, which is likely to increase regular use by taxis and private cars turning round in a pedestrian area.
“The proposal to move the bike racks and open up the currently closed off ‘slip road’ for vehicle exit will increase risks for cyclists and result in vehicles swinging out into the path of cyclists and cars entering Duncombe Place from the junction.
“It’s an arrangement that could lead to cyclists riding on the pavement or past incongruous ‘no entry’ signs on the ‘slip road’ leading to the cycle racks. It will be a waste of funds once it is implemented as a dog’s breakfast solution.”
Currently, vehicles use the initial section of Blake Street for drop-offs and deliveries before existing back towards the Museum Street and Duncombe Place junction, which is currently illegal due to one-way restrictions.
Under the proposals, vehicles would be allowed to exit via the slip road, with restrictions amended to introduce a mix of one-way and two-way traffic movements. Blake Street beyond the bollards would remain one-way.
The plans also include two dedicated bays for inclusive and cargo bikes, along with a commitment to explore additional cycle parking in the future.
The City of York Council report on the plans stated it would improve safety for drivers and vulnerable road users while allowing permitted vehicles to exit onto Duncombe Place.
York Civic Trust also opposes the changes, as it says all the extra signage would harm the heritage setting.
It opposes “The undesirable re-allocation of road space to vehicles on the Slip-Road; the counter-intuitive vehicle movements that this would introduce; and the acute turn-out onto Duncombe Place”.
It put forward a different option, which is supported by York Cycle Campaign, of a dedicated exit signal from Blake Street at the junction. The council rejected this as being too expensive.
Riding (or flying) in style…
I don’t think I’ve seen a better way to spoil your dog than this custom-made bike basket.
Cyclists should “take own responsibility” for safety says Reform councillor, as Halfords and police join forces for bike lights campaign to “make roads safer”
"Politicians can’t simply ‘rip out’ LTNs and bike lanes they don’t like"
There has been a lot of reaction to the news that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman acted unlawfully in removing three Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough, as we covered yesterday.
Active travel campaigner Laura Laker said on BlueSky that “this is significant news for schemes delivered across London in the last nine years.
“It means politicians can’t simply ‘rip out’ LTNs and bike lanes they don’t like. Some of those running in May’s elections are going to have to rethink their pledges.”
> Children take to the barricades to save School Street
Save Our Safer Streets, who brought the legal challenge, celebrated the win on X, saying “WE WON! ?
“Court of Appeal has ruled that Tower Hamlets’ decision to remove Liveable Streets in Bethnal Green is UNLAWFUL
“Councils can’t just tear out schemes without Mayor of London’s approval. This is a MAJOR precedent for London boroughs.”
WE WON! ?
Court of Appeal has ruled that Tower Hamlets decision to remove Liveable Streets in Bethnal Green is UNLAWFUL
Councils can’t just tear out schemes without Mayor of London’s approval.
This is a MAJOR precedent for London boroughs.#SaveOurSaferStreets
— Save Our Safer Streets – Tower Hamlets (@SaveBGstreets) January 22, 2026
In response, Peter Carrol celebrated, “Well done! A fantastic campaign, the commitment and hard work have paid off for a great result for everyone who lives in BG and across London.”
Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea said: “Amazing. You are an inspiration! Thank you so much for the extraordinary effort it will have taken.”
Coalition for Health Streets and Active Travel Oxford also said: “This is great news. Recent LTNs in Oxford have already avoided over 30 casualties. They also have health benefits through pollution reduction and increased physical activity. Tower Hamlets’ safer streets will have similar benefits.”
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, called this “Another example of us doing what is right for Londoners.”
“Change isn’t easy, but I’m willing to make tough choices to make our city safer.”
Another example of us doing what is right for Londoners: More liveable neighbourhoods Healthier communities Fewer Collisions Fewer deaths and serious injuries Change isn’t easy, but I’m willing to make tough choices to make our city safer.
— Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (@london.gov.uk) 22 January 2026 at 12:28
However, there are some commentors who agree with mayor Rahman. Ian Smiler said: “the thing about the LTN is it displaces traffic onto other roads… often from the roads of the well to do onto roads where less wealthy people live…. causing them to suffer increased noise and exhaust pollution – now that is not going to be good for anyone’s welfare, physical or mental.”
> Police urge against scrapping low traffic neighbourhood, saying it reduces crime
Mr_london33 added: “You guys are a bunch of clowns. We the residents that actually live on Old Bethel Green Road don’t want our roads closed. Crime has gone up. To get to point A from point B I now have to travel a longer route, burning more fuel which adds to the pollution so how does that help?”
In the judgment handed down on Thursday, the court found that Rahman had failed to properly implement Tower Hamlets’ Local Implementation Plan (LIP) when he ordered the removal of Bethnal Green LTNs, making the decision unlawful.
Since returning to office, Rahman has rolled back a number of schemes designed to reduce motor traffic and encourage walking and cycling, arguing that LTNs increased congestion and led to higher local carbon emissions.
The legal challenge was brought by campaign group Save Our Safer Streets, which raised more than £100,000 to fund the case. The group appealed to the Court of Appeal after Rahman successfully defended the decision at a High Court hearing in December 2024.
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
38 Comments
Read more...
-300x225.jpg "“Was one of them bad driving?” Newspaper criticised for publishing “8 dangerous cycling mistakes that put people in hospital”; Punchy finale without fans at wildfire-affected Tour de France + more on the live blog")
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I thought Laura did well, and capped the bullshit firehose effectively - especially as she had never had an attempted mugging from a far-right shock-jock before. Her "the Netherlands was not the Netherlands in the 1970s" is a genius point, which I will remember. She could have added "Why do you want to live in a Carry On film" if she wanted to put JHB back in her hot air balloon.. But nonetheless - enjoyable, even though personally I probably preferred Laura's debagging of Richard Madeley on Jeremy Vine iirc with sheer logic.
If a pro hits the deck wearing one of these and is uninjured apart from some road rash, will he or she be able to jump back on and keep riding? Or will it be necessary to wait and change into a new jersey / skinsuit? That could be a deciding factor for their use in elite races.
My greatest fear is being struck from behind while cycling. If this demonstrably reduces injuries from such an attack, I want one. Anything that improves safety gets my support.
As I think that poster liked to remind us, explosion in the hi-viz aisle of Decathlon is also a big risk for cyclists.
@IanGlasgow indeed - my point was really just in answer to the reviewer's apparent surprise they didn't add discs - but the Kinetic kits show it actually requires quite a lot of change.
...And another one turning up on a bicycle to another former poster's soirée and then being hurt by his reaction?
8 dangerous mistakes that put riders in A&E - was one going on a ride with former(?) poster wheelywheely... and being run over on the pavement by a mob of cyclists riding furiously through a red light on the wrong side of the road ... and then having wheely's wheelchair fall on you?
@ktache Just came here to say that, heard them too (watching on delay after work). Sounds a sensible approach and hopefully will stop the idiots, though there will doubtless always be some.
@MaxiMinimalist Please don't dirty these pages up with cut and paste from AI, if your comment wasn't worth giving your own thought and effort to why is it worth inflicting it on anyone else? In this case, as MDF notes, it doesn't even answer the question you asked, let alone have anything to do with the article. One wonders if this is why your comments are so often absurdly phrased, tortuous word salads with only tangential relationships to the matter under discussion, do you just ask AI to write them for you? If so, please stop it.
@GravelIsNothingNew Reporting poor driving in Scotland is much more difficult than in England. I've done it three times in more than a decade. It involves making a statement at a police station or arranging for them to visit you at home to take a statement. Then the chances of action being taken are almost nil. Apparently Scots law prevents them acting on an online report and an uploaded video and there appears to be no interest among Holyrood MSPs in changing that.
38 thoughts on ““Politicians can’t simply ‘rip out’ LTNs and bike lanes they don’t like”; Cycle lane plans scrapped at last minute; Matthews life-threatening diagnosis + more on the live blog”
This is worrying.
This is worrying.
“Low-traffic zones increased congestion, TfL admits“
Not for what it shows, but what it might embolden some people to say/do.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gllpxx6d3o
This is worrying
This is worrying
Not very, although I take your point. What has really increased congestion is the ludicrous notion that everybody can drive and park everywhere all the time
Classic motor-normative
Classic motor-normative framing & deflection. “But, but the traffic will end up elsewhere….” & so it’s the LTN that’s the issue & given the spotlight, not the massive queue of cars shaped elephant sat in the corner that’s the actual problem.
“Traffic” is just a given, blindly accepted background noise, nothing to see here, no need to try & reduce it it any way shape or form. Because on occasion John has transport a grand piano & some plumbing supplies 100 miles away for a job. So, obviously every journey everywhere should default to being driven.
Me. Sat in congestion. Traffic? How very dare you sir!
Clem Fandango wrote:
Which should, of course, be on a trunk road anyway.
I really should take you to
I really should take you to tusk over that
Yet more online fighting? I
Yet more online fighting? I blame Elmer Musth…
Increased in some instances.
Increased in some instances. Which is not new nor surprising, but is a crap headline. It’s a misleading headline. The correct headline is that some have increased motor traffic congestion, some have seen decreased congestion, but that overall there has been no significant change compared to the counterfactual. But public transport and cycling and walking have improved.
Deliberately misleading, you
Deliberately misleading, you could argue as it’s the BBC.
Not gonna lie, thats kind of
Not gonna lie, thats kind of what you expect and want. People aren’t going to change their behaviour because you ask them nicely. They will do it because its the least painful choice. Unfortunately too many things now are having to be addressed via encouraging the desired behaviour via making the bad choice less palatable.
If you make it too expensive or uncomfortable to do something or make the inertia hard to overcome then behaviour changes.
The smoking habits changed massive IMO not because of the known health implecations of smoking but because it was banned in all enclosed places and because they changed how you could market/advertise smoking/cigarettes.
To get people off their bums and using different modes of transport you need to make them genuinely usable ie cycle lanes, lots of busses. You also need to make using your car for journeys that don’t need them very uncomfortable. If your journey takes twice as long and costs you more money than using public transport or active travel then most people will choose the latter.
Yes, but at the same time you
Yes, but at the same time you get those people who will continue to use the now more painful method of getting around and who deal with the cognitive dissonance of their continuing to do something which is actively harming them by imagining themselves as footsoldiers in a war on motorists and personal liberty, to the extent that they regard anybody who asks for the most basic road safety features such as a zebra crossing as being rabid car-hating lunatics.
I think it’s simpler than
I think it’s simpler than that – over 90% of cars are on finance, so they will feel they have to make use of the mileage allowance and the monthly fee they are paying to rent the car. Glad we bought ours 10 years ago !
Good point. It’s the all
Good point. It’s the all-inclusive hotel principle.
mitsky wrote:
Also, they reduce traffic volumes.
But big changes won’t happen overnight. NL has had a 50-year run-up to where they are now, whereas we’ve had planned decline of public services over the same period.
And … cycling had not
And … cycling had not fallen as low there as in the UK (essentially NL was a few years behind the UK “driving replaces all other modes” curve). But also they actually had the start of a separated path network.
Having said that, as you say once they decided to leave the path of bulldozing it for the car they generally kept going in the right direction.
By contrast the UK at best had a couple of rounds of “encouraging cycling” (mostly with warm words). And where governments decided to “test if cycling works” … quickly dropping the programmes after. But the overall trajectory hasn’t changed.
Also: other places have started from much less promising places and in say 10 years have made significant changes (Seville, Paris has done quite a lot…)
I’ve been too lazy to go and
I’ve been too lazy to go and research this properly, for which I apologise, but based on the reporting here, it seems like the LTN was a MacGuffin and the hard-won victory was for the governance process?
i.e. the right of the locals to have an LTN isn’t enshrined in precedent, it’s that the local council can’t rip them out without going back to the Mayor of London for approval that is? The reason it matters is that there’s every chance the next Mayor of London is a swivel-eyed lunatic who will be out to reverse everything their predecessor did?
Like I say, apologies if I’ve misread it.
I think the issue is that the
I think the issue is that the council didn’t follow the proper process in consulting the local community (i.e. they didn’t). It’s got nowt to do with TfL.
AidanR wrote:
Respectfully, that’s not correct. It’s got a lot to do with TfL: the reason the court ruled that Rahman, as Mayor, did not have the authority unilaterally to scrap the LTNs is because they had been introduced and funded by TfL as part of an agreed traffic implementation strategy. Although TfL didn’t bring the case they had their own barrister in court, as campaigner Ted Maxwell said (from the Guardian):
“We the community brought this legal challenge, including raising thousands of pounds for legal support, but the involvement of TfL was key and their barrister, Charlotte Kilroy KC, was quietly devastating in court. The judge said Rahman acted beyond his powers. The judge ruled that Rahman does not have the power to remove a scheme that was delivered as part of a Transport for London implementation plan.”
A Tfl spokesperson said:
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision in this case, which provides welcome clarity on the scope of London boroughs’ legal duties to implement and retain schemes funded by TfL to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.”
Basically, the court has ruled that TfL’s transport strategy has priority over the demands of local mayors.
I’m pasting out of order, but
I’m pasting out of order, but verbatim (noting that this sort of thing has landed the BBC in some legal bother) …
“The court, however, rejected the campaigners’ other points of appeal, namely that Mr Rahman failed to run a fair consultation prior to removing the LTNs and that he failed to follow the correct procedures.”
“In September 2023, Tower Hamlets Council, led by its pro-car mayor Lutfur Rahman, voted to remove three Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough, despite a series of consultations showing that a majority of residents were in favour of retaining the traffic-calming measures.”
“In the judgement, Lord Justice Singh concluded Mr Rahman had breached the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by ignoring the borough’s LIP and London mayor Sadiq Khan’s drive to reduce car use in the capital.”
… so it reads as though the local Council can democratically choose to overrule the conclusion of a fair consultation (as long as one has been carried out and the results presented pre-vote, presumably, hopefully), but if that decision goes against the LIP then the decision needs to be escalated back to the Mayor of London.
It doesn’t say that the Council can’t ignore the wishes of the locals, just that they can’t reverse something which was implemented as part of the Mayor of London’t strategy, unless the Mayor’s office approves the exception to the LIP? For me that’s the point, because I can see Sadiq Khan being history at the next time of asking …
panda wrote:
Is there any reason beyond the wishful thinking wet dreams of right wingers to believe this? Khan has won three elections for Mayor on the bounce and the most recent polling (January 8th, Evening Standard) has Khan on 32%, Conservatives 20%, Reform 19%, Greens 13% and Lib Dems 11%. Obviously much can change between now and 2028 and we don’t know what candidates some of the other parties are going to run (or even if Khan will stand for a fourth term, he hasn’t committed yet) but for now he is very much in the box seat.
Only that low turnout
Only that low turnout elections tell you more about who is angry than what the silent majority want. And the longer you’re in power, the more people you make angry. If you combine that with what I’m sensing is a general lack of interest in anything Labour / Tory have to say (“they’re all the same” etc), I can see the “right” Reform candidate making a lot of noise and sneaking past the post on a 35% turnout. I think it was smalls over 40% last time?
I do recall Labour’s entire strategy in the first West Midlands mayoral election being – or at least seeming to be – “we’re not going to out-debate Street, so pretend the whole thing isn’t happening, don’t engage with the media and hope our core loyal vote gets us over the line on a very low turnout”. It very nearly did.
I hope I’m wrong, obviously.
I think you’re
I think you’re underestimating Khan’s personal popularity with a large proportion of the London electorate and the effect that will have on the vote; don’t forget he’s won three elections during the rule of Conservative governments and two of those at a time when the Tories were riding quite high in the polls. You’ve also got to remember that London is a lot more left-wing than the national average; at the last general election we returned 59 Labour MPs out of 75 seats and the last polling I saw in December predicted that only four of those would be lost to Reform if there was a general election tomorrow. Finally, it seems inevitable that Reform will make big gains in the local elections this year; looking at the absolute Horlicks they have made of the councils they run at present I see no reason to suppose they wouldn’t make an equal mess of any they gain this year and the next London mayoral election will be two years later, I think the scales will have fallen from a lot of people’s eyes regarding Reform’s capacities and capabilities by then.
Somewhere in Chichester City
Somewhere in Chichester City Centre, this is a local piece of guerrilla humour by the Chichester Anti-Recreation Society (CARP) which is a poke at the city city being apparently too serious about little things.
From my knowlege of Chi, it’s
From my knowlege of Chi, it’s probably the top end of North Street, attached to the ‘no cycling’ sign!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rx971yXmTXZjNUmt9
“To get to point A from point
“To get to point A from point B I now have to travel a longer route, burning more fuel which adds to the pollution so how does that help?”
Nobody is making you drive.
bensynnock wrote:
And in any case that can be matched by “I would love to cycle from point A to point B but without the LTN/cycle lane I’m too scared to so I have to travel by car, which adds to the pollution so how does that help?”
Exactly, they don’t have to
Exactly, they don’t have to travel the longer route they just can’t drive to use the shorter route.
Nobody is making you ride a
Nobody is making you ride a velocipede either. Until the day motorized vehicles are banned from roads, motorists and cyclists have to find a way to be on the asphalt at the same time.
Being on the asphalt at the
Being on the asphalt at the same time is simple to achieve, the problem is being on the same asphalt at the same time (or almost), no?
Luckily the way is being shown on many places: mix where it feels safe, separate otherwise. And the walkers and cyclists get the direct / flat route.
Where it feels safe means for 8 and 80 year olds. Where the motorist has been tamed – and in fact there aren’t many motorists at all, and they’re going rather slow.
Riding a bicycle (or trike, or wheelchair with power assist, or a mobility scooter…) is the obvious choice for many circumstances. It’s far more efficient than walking, and you can carry stuff with much less effort. When provided for it means less fuss – just unlock, ride to your destination, lock up – no hunt the parking space. You can get places several times faster, or go several times further for your effort.
Indeed you can get folding cycles that you can take with you on public transport (or chuck in your car…)
There seem to be rather too
There seem to be rather too many drivers who want to see us on the asphalt – personally I’d rather keep my tyres on it and me off it…
Thames Valley to get
Thames Valley to get dedicated roads policing unit…
https://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/news/pcc-sets-out-local-policing-budget/
Is it the mists of time
Is it the mists of time clouding my memory, but didnt Police Forces have dedicated Traffic Officers?
I seem to remember them purring up and down the M6 in their Rover SDi’s, and their white arm and hat covers.
Thames Valley to get
Thames Valley to get dedicated roads policing unit…
Is there a prize for the first horrifying close pass attack on a cyclist dismissed by the new dedicated roads police as ‘no offence has been committed’?
Thames Valley Police will deliver 53 more neighbourhood police officers this coming year
It’s the Garstang NPT which is refusing to act against the long term MOT evaders I have recently publicised on here, despite claiming 2 weeks ago to be ‘taking action’ against the one where I know the address, pass it every day and see that it’s out with no MOT yet again: WU13 RYT. The whole point of NPTs is that they’re always ‘not there’, so they have a permanent excuse for doing nothing.
Well, this is just askiing to
Well, this is just asking to be crashed into ! And will no one think of the blind, disabled and drivers who are ‘just popping into the shop for a minute’ ?
What about the disabled blind
What about the disabled blind drivers?
Installing cycle lanes may be
Installing cycle lanes may be ‘politically correct’, but the reality is that when they impact parking provisions, it has a detrimental effect on local businesses.
Don’t bother providing evidence of where this “reality” has been observed, it won’t be necessary. There will always be a local MP in search for a politically incorrect battle or local rag in search of angry people to hear you out.
Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock MP
Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock MP Elaine Stewart warned that removing car parking to make space for cycling would disrupt the local economy and could even increase risk to cyclists by forcing them into narrow traffic lanes
How lucky we are, with Right Wing MPs always looking out for our best interests!
They can…but only because
They can…but only because people keep voting for them.
Politicians with a favourable
Politicians with a favourable view of cycling and active travel may soon be getting a significant say in how Wales is run. The Welsh Greens are forecast to win 11 seats in May’s Welsh Senedd election. It’s unlikely that Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) will get an overall majority despite being the favourites to win, so Green support will be important. They’ve work together at local level for some time so a co-operation agreement in the Senedd is likely.