- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Southfields LTN in LB Ealing (picture Simon MacMichael)Rishi Sunak pledges to “stop war on motorists” and review LTNs
Rishi Sunak – who as Chancellor of the Exchequer not only pursued the same policy as Conservative predecessors in the post for the past 12 years in freezing fuel duty, but earlier this year actually cut it – has pledged to halt what he says is “the war on motorists” if elected leader of the party next month, which would see him succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
The Tory politician also said he would review low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) which aim to stop rat-running drivers use residential streets as short cuts to avoid congestion, halt the rollout of smart motorways, and tighten regulation of private parking contractors, reports Wales Online.
Sunak, who trails Liz Truss in the polls in the leadership contest which will be decided by Conservative Party members, has been described by his supporters as the “most pro-driver Chancellor in history.”
He said: “The UK is a passionate driving nation because driving provides freedom.
“We need to stop making life difficult for the vast majority of people across the UK who rely on a car as their primary source of transport to healthcare, employment and other essential day-to-day things.
“As Chancellor, I introduced the largest cut to fuel duty in a generation, and as Prime Minister I will go further so that we stop the war on motorists once and for all.”
His plans to review LTNs are said to be based on his belief that they impede police, fire and ambulance vehicles, despite what Cycling UK has described as “clear evidence” to the contrary and the fact they are supported by the emergency services themselves.
> “Clear evidence” does not support “flat earther” LTN 999 delay headlines, says Cycling UK
His comments come at the end of a week in which former cabinet colleague, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, suggested that cyclists should be required to carry third-party insurance, be subject to the same speed limits as motorists, and have number plates on their bikes – although he subsequently rowed back on that latter point.
> “No plans to introduce registration plates” for cyclists, insists Grant Shapps
At the height of the pandemic, Shapps and Johnson strongly promoted cycling and walking as a key part of the country’s recovery and encouraged councils to set up LTNs – a policy opposed by many of their own MPs, as well as a number of Tory-run local authorities and whichever of Truss or Sunak gets the keys to Number 10 Downing Street next month, it is highly unlikely that support active travel will be high up their agenda.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Jitensha Oni 6 hours 9 min ago
If it’s the same FOI response I saw ( FOI-0538-2425 ), in Richmond Park (local to me so the one I had a good look at in the FOI tables), from 2019...
- Gbjbanjs 6 hours 17 min ago
As an Irish person, I am embarrassed for this guy and the judge. He is clearly a thug, so do not get where he takes pride in wearing the country...
- ktache 6 hours 23 min ago
I don't think the fine toilet roll holder is made of an old chainset, looks more like the two biggest rings on a carrier from a cassette, my 9...
- Rendel Harris 8 hours 28 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
- JMcL_Ireland 10 hours 32 min ago
I absolutely stand by my criticism of Elite (note: I'm not criticising the volunteer marshals). They charge an arm and a leg for these events but...
- Destroyer666 10 hours 45 min ago
There's a lot of good stuff here, but shoe reviews are still lagging on average when comparing to for example bike or tire reviews. Specs relating...
- galibiervelo 11 hours 18 min ago
Loved the Bastion in the flesh but Lemond's bike has the soul. Nice event and met some friends and contacts but like the magazine, it does promote...
- Hirsute 13 hours 28 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 14 hours 42 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
Add new comment
128 comments
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The gr0g comment was a separate thread. I just then suggested it was part of a wider clean up by mods
Ahh, thought he posted on this one AND the other one.
I'm sure they would have no issue with you praising Sunak, Truss or anyone else you choose, you have frequently voiced your support for various figures and I haven't noticed it being deleted. I suspect the problem with your comments in this instance would have been that you were making a very specific and potentially libellous allegation about Corbyn and that lays road.cc open to legal action if it allowed your comments to stand. You can say what you like about him, or anyone else, in terms of opinion, but you can't blame the site for not wishing to host your very specific and disputed allegations when they could find themselves in the dock for them.
Alternatively you could just call them silly names and bitch about how incredibly biased they are, which yet again begs the question why do you keep coming back when it's so terrible?
And Rendel is back to type trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site.
If road.cc cared about libel then I imagine half the posts from Burt about Boris would have been removed. I didn't say anything that hasn't been said 1000 times before in multiple newspapers and on multiple websites and, afaik, Corbyn hasn't sued once.
The idea that he'd start his campaign of litigation several years late against a poster on a minor cycling website is pretty laughable.
The simple fact is that road.cc has censored fairly mundane criticism of Corbyn (which was supported by objective analysis) whilst allowing continued personal attacks against other politicians.
Laughably biased censorship of the comments makes the road.cc mods look petulant and pathetic.
You may want to live in an echo chamber Rendel but some of us don't. I'd appreciate at least a veneer of impartiality from the mods to try and preserve some semblance of debate on this site.
And how am I doing that? By criticising your opinions and attempting to answer your question as to why your comments were removed? I didn't ask for them to be removed, and indeed I have never asked for anyone's comments to be removed either publicly or by private communication with the editorial team except for in two instances, the recent one mentioned here where gr0g was trying to spread a particularly nasty racist trope and once when your erstwhile mate Nigel was making libellous comments about me, untrue and offensive claims about my wife, and attempting to share my personal information. That's it, I've never tried to "force alternative viewpoints off the site", unless you believe that disagreeing with someone is doing so.
I suggest that if you genuinely feel your comments have been unjustly removed that you email Simon MacMichael, community editor, and ask him about it, instead of whining like a spoiled child on here and calling the editorship silly and offensive names.
The fact that you've suggested multiple times I should stop coming back to road.cc is not, of course, any evidence whatsoever of you trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site...
I've seen you say the same to many other posters who disagree with you.
I've certainly asked why you insist on spending so much time pontificating on a site where you apparently hate the editorial policy and disagree with the majority of posters, that's a pretty reasonable question I think.
You, your now-banned mate Nigel Garrage (and his many aliases), the now-banned SocraticCyclist, Flintshire Boy, Martin73, gr0g the racist. That's many?
Me, Martin and Flintshire are reasonably prolific posters who disagree with you and you have tried to force all of us to leave.
Plus there are the many, many first time posters who you goad relentlessly when they dare to post something you disagree with.
Maybe you're the problem?
How exactly have I "tried to force all [of you] to leave"? I've certainly suggested that Martin and Flintshire should stop their childish and obvious trolling, and I've suggested to you that it seems foolish to keep banging on ad infinitum on a site where you apparently despise most posters and the editorial team (and on which, incidentally, you virtually never comment on anything to do with cycling). That's forcing you? Bless.
.
Hey Rich. Trendy has tried to force us to leave?
.
What was that phrase about being savaged by a dead sheep?
.
No, it gets worse. Trendy will threaten to 'keep his eye on you'.
.
How can a man go on after that level of intimidation?
.
You, your now-banned mate Nigel Garrage (and his many aliases), the now-banned SocraticCyclist, Flintshire Boy, Martin73, gr0g the racist
Well, Rendel has had a go at me because of my declaration that e-biking is not the same thing as cycling, and I have had a go at him because of his assertion that the Met says that you have 3 seconds after the lights change to red to cross the Stop line, before they will take any action. But I have to agree with him on this, except that I seem to remember that it was SocratiCyclist?
Yes indeed that's true, and we have both given as good as we got, haven't we? But as far as I recall neither of us started wailing s'not fair, he's trying to force me to leave the site miss!
No you just console yourself with shouting 'racist' at people with different opinions.
Maybe stop suggesting repeatedly that people leave the site and people won't complain about it.
Maybe try a bit more live and let live?
It'll be good for your blood pressure I'm sure and will make the site far more pleasant for other users to boot.
"People" is a plural, I'm just seeing one person whining here, and about something that's not true to boot.
I called you racist when you were being racist, that's for sure. I remember calling Nigel Garage a racist when he was being one too. Any others? Bit rich (ha!) from someone who desperately accuses people of being antisemitic because their political opinions differ in such a ridiculous way that their comments have to be deleted by site moderators.
Off to bed now, suggest you very much need yours, you seem a bit hysterical and overwrought. Have a good sleep and when you come back in the morning see if you can comment on something to do with cycling, there are loads of topics to choose from on this site, give it a go.
What did I say that was racist Rendel?
Please provide the quote or apologise.
Here's the thread:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-london-quarter-2019-294507
You seem to have a very low bar to make accusations of racism but an incredibly high bar to accept that something is antisemitic.
Can you explain that apparent discrepancy?
You introduced, out of the blue, a moan about the way stop and search figures regarding race are interpreted and went on to say that there is no racism indicated in the fact that a black person is nine times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. Defending racist policies* is racism.
Very bored with this discussion now as I'm sure everyone else is, so you do you (I can feel an accusation of antisemitism coming my way any moment) but I'm out.
*The use of stop and search is more disproportionate now than it was two decades ago, with no adequate explanation or justification for the nature and scale of racial disparities, including on drug possession searches where in 2019 Black people were 2.4 times more likely than White people to be searched but in the last year were less likely to use drugs. New scrutiny and transparency is needed including more use of police body worn cameras, community oversight, and new police training.
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2021
Did I? Or have you made that up?
Your accusation of racism was false Rendel and now you're doubling down by blatantly lying about things that I said.
Here's the thread:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-london-quarter-2019-294507#comments
There aren't many comments so anyone can easily check your claim and see that you are simply lying.
I would like an apology.
.
Hey Rich, time for you to realise that Rendy simply does not do 'different points of view'.
If you don't agree with his bombast and utter certainty, then he'll threaten to 'keep his eye on you', or worse (Shock! Scared? You should be).
.
.
Accuracy is of ZERO importance if you are Trendy on a spout!
.
.
Phew! Back from the dead!
.
Thank goodness for that.
.
LOL! Ain't Trendy brilliant for a larf?!
.
.
Yup. 's'what he does!
.
If calling out racist comments is "trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site." Then bring it on.
Other comments removed from the website and people banned were COVID disinformation and anti semitism - user btbs / cibm
Or are you ok with those 3 things ?
It's not just the racists/anti semites (ironic) Rendel goes after.
It's literally anybody who he disagrees with.
I'm more than happy for genuine racists to be removed but given that Rendel accused me of racism for simply pointing out the flaw in some government statistics I'm not sure he should be the arbiter in that area.
COVID disinformation is another dubious area. I was also accused of that for pointing out the inefficacy of the original vaccines against the Omicron variant despite posting the government data that supported my point.
Personally I'm happy to see a wide breadth of opinions on almost any topic. I think echo chambers are far more dangerous than 'dangerous' opinions.
Says Rich, going after me because he disagrees with me. You want to start taking some water with it old son.
Have I suggested you leave the site?
Falsely accused you of racism?
Nope.
Keep digging Rendel.
I can't remember the exact COVID thing except it was multiple times and very extreme, nothing like you describe in your short para.
Maybe wtjs can remember as he was pretty vociferous about it.
I find - over time - it helps to let go of old friends before you find yourself fantasising about eating their liver with fava beans and a nice chianti. After all they might just be road.cc minions fanning flames, or some other oddball on here for a breather too. Trolls are tempting but there are others who can also set the record straight for the Internet.
I try to go by: if I spent time here and didn't learn something, help someone out (rare!) or come away amused it was probably not time well spent.
Well, Rendel and I have disagreed (and agreed) many times, but I don't think I'd ever use the rather silly term "goes after". It's perfectly possible to have a rational discussion with someone and disagree, unless you aren't rational of course.
Wow! Paranoid much?
Pages