“Motorists don’t pay for roads any more than anybody else”: Council shuts down backlash to 20mph speed limit to “support new cycling route” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Owner of Ridley and Eddy Merckx brands introduces 'transferable lifetime warranty' to cover second owners
Transport for London is going to celebrate 10 inspirational female cyclists by naming Santander Cycles after them — and you can nominate your suggestion now
Nominations are open for a select group of 10 inspirational female cyclists who Transport for London (TfL) will name Santander hire bikes after to mark International Women’s Day on Sunday 8 March.
TfL suggested nominations could be anyone from professional cycling stars to unsung heroes, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan taking the opportunity to reaffirm that he is “committed to addressing the barriers to cycling for women and girls”.
Entries close on 8 February and a panel of judges will select from the nominees, balancing the most frequently nominated with those aforementioned unsung heroes. Entries can be emailed or submitted via post, and full details on email and postal addresses can be found here.
London walking and cycling commissioner Will Norman called it a “fun new initiative” that could “inspire women cyclists to embrace active travel as we continue building a greener, fairer, better London for everyone”.
TfL’s press release on the initiative goes on to explain how the most important thing is supporting more women to cycle, highlighting how its investment in safe and accessible infrastructure is vital to this.
Research from Australia, published in 2023 by Monash University’s Sustainable Mobility and Safety Research Group, suggested that new cycling infrastructure should be built with women in mind.
“It’s about planning for the trips that aren’t taken as well as those that are,” the lead researcher Dr Pearson said. “Women want to make local trips and we need to make sure we’re building the infrastructure to support this, not just thinking about the people that are already riding, and having that gender lens on all design decisions.”
Likewise, last year Cycling UK published a report highlighting how abuse and unsafe infrastructure were preventing more women from cycling.
If it's not on Strava (and you don't have a receipt), it didn't happen
Turned my Strava activities into physical receipts complete with activity data, gps data, and photos!
byu/re-pete-io inStrava
Taking proof of ride to a whole new level. The person who shared this on Reddit explained how they’re hoping to print these for upcoming races as a memento from the day.
Newspaper round-up: Irish media condemns judge who made extraordinary 'nightmare cyclists' comments during court hearing
The big story from yesterday has rumbled on into Wednesday, the Irish press widely covering the comments by a judge who claimed during a court hearing that Dublin cyclists have “become a nightmare” and “you never know what they are going to do or anticipate what they are going to do”.
As numerous sites and newspapers have now reported, the judge behind the remarks, James O’Donohoe (who told the court he was entitled, as a motorist who uses Dublin’s roads, to take judicial notice of his own experiences) was, ironically, back in 2012 fined €600 after pleading guilty to refusing a breathalyser test.
O’Donohoe’s remarks have been a major story across the Irish media, The Irish Times today publishing an editorial on “a judge’s generalisations” and arguing “a culture of blame between different types of road users is not the way forward”.
Likewise, a piece published by the Irish Examiner said the “judge’s comments show bias against cyclists is ‘deeply embedded’ in Irish society”. In the opinion piece, Ciaran Cannon wrote: “When a judge dismisses cyclists as a ‘nightmare’, it exposes how deeply embedded bias against vulnerable road users remains in Irish society. These are not throwaway remarks — they reflect how far we are from the cultural shift required to build genuinely safe streets.”
Ranking the best tyres for road cycling (in early 2026)
The Hugh Carthy mystery
There was a time not so long ago that Hugh Carthy was one of Britain’s brightest hopes for the Grand Tours, the EF climber having podiumed the 2020 Vuelta and won the Angliru stage during an impressive three weeks in Spain. The next two years brought two top-10s at the Giro, but Carthy never really took that next step to contending for Grand Tour GC wins. His results slid further and by 2024 and 2025, EF weren’t even sending the Brit to any three-week races.
We’ve barely heard anything about him in recent times, a certain cycling statistics website saying the 31-year-old is now retired, his contract having expired at the end of last year. Don’t ask how but Callum stumbled across Carthy’s name on a results sheet for the Garstang 10km earlier this month (in 82nd place with a 44:07 if anyone was wondering). It would make sense considering Garstang is just 12 miles from Carthy’s home city of Preston. Anyway, we’ve put podcast host Ryan on the case so hopefully will have more to report soon…
Arise, Sir James of Wokingham Council
Well, that escalated quickly…
Apparently we’re going to have to add a category to our road.cc Recommends Awards Series… man of the year, council worker of the year, Facebook warrior of the year… James from Wokingham Borough, you’ve won them all!
‘How was your day at work?’
‘Ah, not too bad, just spent the afternoon badly editing together a load of comments hailing our new king, a council officer named James from Wokingham… just the usual really…’
"I reject any stereotyping of cyclists": Irish prime minister condemns judge's 'nightmare cyclists' comments, as Labour makes formal complaint to judicial standards body
"This new route is a major step forward in making it safer, easier and more pleasant for people to walk and cycle"
It’s not just Wokingham where new active travel infrastructure is going in, of course. Salford City Council is pleased to show off the finished product of new cycling and walking facilities on Chapel Street and New Bailey. There’s apparently around one-kilometre of dedicated cycle lanes and “high quality walking infrastructure”, as well 11 new benches, 12 new trees, a rain garden and 85 square metres of planting beds. We’re told it’s all now open, even if the picture provided looks awfully like the one from the planning and development phase… unless it’s unseasonably warm in Salford this week?
“The project rebalances road space in favour of people travelling on foot and by bike, while still accommodating buses and general traffic,” the council said, the lead for planning and transport suggesting it would be a “major step forward” for active travel journeys in the area. Anyone local had a go and got any thoughts?
The best cycling bargains: check out the road.cc Recommends Bargain Buys of the Year 2025/26
> The best cycling bargains: check out the road.cc Recommends Bargain Buys of the Year 2025/26
Don’t expect to find today’s hero James in here, mic-drop Facebook commenting like that can’t be cheap…
"Motorists don't pay for roads any more than anybody else": Council hits back after backlash over 20mph speed limit to "support new cycling route"
You can probably guess how the ranters of local Facebook pages reacted to this, Wokingham Borough announcing plans for a speed limit to be reduced from 30mph to 20mph to “support a new walking and cycling route” which the local authority will begin construction on at the end of the month.
A consultation on the proposal, which saw just 166 people respond, found 114 people were opposed, the council’s executive member for active travel, transport and highways stating that adjustments had been made based on the consultation but, even with opposition, the “evidence is quite clear of the benefits of 20mph speed limits in the presence of vulnerable road users”.
“It certainly will make the route more attractive, easier and safer for vulnerable road users, and will encourage more people to walk, cycle and wheel instead of driving when doing this journey, and therefore reduce congestion for people who choose to drive through the route,” he added.
Given the 40+ ‘angry reacts’ and 285 comments on Wokingham Borough’s social media post, it’ll be a surprise to nobody that the comments section has descended into a frothing round-up of criticism for the proposal, however… the council has come out fighting.
Not content to leave Facebook ranting unanswered, the local authority is responding to residents’ comments and dropping a few microphones in the process. One local said she “loves how motorists pay for the roads AND the bike lanes, only to be rewarded with a 20mph speed limit. Meanwhile, the cyclists get a free ride. Unbelievable.”
To which, James from Wokingham Borough replied: “Hi Tereena – motorists don’t pay for roads or bike lanes any more than anybody else does. The vehicle excise duty that motorists pay goes into a general pot for all public services, and there hasn’t been a road tax since the 1930s. In any case, many cyclists are also car owners so there isn’t a straight distinction between the two groups. Even where you have cyclists who don’t drive, they pay for projects like this through income tax. James”
James has had his Weetabix. Next up was someone asking, “How about repairing existing – appalling – roads?”
To which James pointed out: “We do as much as we can to maintain and repair the roads, within the financial constraints we face. However, the money being invested in this project is from a dedicated Government fund that’s set aside for improving walking and cycling links, so this scheme isn’t using money that would otherwise be spent on maintenance. James”
A third local suggested the changes will make the existing road too narrow and would increase the risk of collisions. Yep, James took this one too: “Hi Attiq. The cycleway is taking space from an existing verge, not the road, so that won’t be an issue. The original proposal was to take road space and make Woodlands Avenue one-way, but we redesigned the plan based on people’s concerns that this would be too difficult for motorists. James”
One final one, although we could do this all morning: “What an absolute joke…..So now arrest the morons that dont [sic] use the lanes.”
Right on cue: “Hi Keith. Most traffic enforcement issues, with a small number of exceptions around parking and moving traffic offences, are for the police rather than us. However, it isn’t an offence to not use a cycle lane where provided, although cyclists should not be using a footway if it isn’t shared-use with cyclists. James”
James’s relentless batting away of comments section whinging was so prolific, someone even asked, “Who is behind this Wokingham Borough account?” We’ve told you four times… it’s James! The comment also questioned if it was their place to “defend political decisions”.
“All we are doing is explaining how the various processes work and the strategic rationale behind the scheme from a corporate point of view – as we’ve done during previous administrations, though again not with any connection to them politically. It’s the basic function of all local authority comms teams and we’ll continue to do so regardless of any future political landscape. James.”
While we’ve had a bit of fun with that, perhaps the place to end is by asking whether councils should follow Wokingham Borough’s lead here and be more front-footed in explaining and defending active travel projects, rather than letting hundreds of negative (and often false or misinformed) comments rack up on local authority social media pages?
14 January 2026, 08:41
14 January 2026, 08:41
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 £2.49. 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.
47 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@bensynnock Yes, but I think edjz was referring to pedal cycles with an electric motor - I don't know if there any non-EAPC-compliant examples of those with type approval.
@Geoff H And how often does this work is this purely scaremongering and often repeated rubbish. People don't sue the car manufacturer when they crash their car and the brakes didn't prevent the accident, the tyres didn't grip well enough, the windscreen wasn't tinted enough, someone put a speed bump in the road etc. This just sounds like rubbish that people use to justify stopping kids doing something fun that has some risk to it.
...(so assuming they're "type-approved" if MOT exists) ... and have the appropriate category on your driving licence (or presumably have done your CBT and have an L-plate), have got that insurance, wear an appropriate helmet and only ride on the road in accordance with the conditions for that kind of vehicle... but other than that, it's basically order on the Internet and go...
You can buy legal electric motorbikes and mopeds. https://www.flexelectric.co.uk/category/e-mopeds You'd think some of these were illegal if you saw them, but they have an MOT from new and can be insured. You'd want to carry your documents with you.
Has anyone ridden any of the Forestry England dirt courses? Some of them are pretty hairy and could definitely be deemed dangerous. Dalby forest has seen a fair few of my friends injured on some of the more gnarly downhills. These are the routes they are saying the youngsters are allowed on, rather than a well designed pump track with ramps, which would be an excellent introduction to the more challenging routes throughout the forest. Their proposal of a redesign will no doubt turn out to be a sanitised version of what they are removing. As an oldster, child of the 70's I don't remember any serious injuries from all the 'dangerous' stuff we did.
@ErgoKnees the riders family asked for it to continue and as Rendel mentioned, neutralised stages are generally a nightmare (one to manage and two for the riders). Granted, blame has to be with the race organiser but road closures simply come down to a matter of cost. The TdF can afford this, smaller races can't. Instead of the UCI taking a fee they should be treating these races like a loss leader and supporting them to improve safety measures like using police rather than volunteers and using the proper barriers.
Even your correction of the correction isn't quite right. It's perfectly legal for an EAPC (not EPAC) to be able to go more than 15.5 mph - its just that the motor has to cut out above that speed. Also, it isn't necessarily illegal to use a bike that doesn't meet the EAPC requirements, provided you first get a vehicle approval and find someone willing to insure it (though, in practice, next to nobody's going to bother with all that when they can mostly just go out and ride them without and no-one will do anything about it).
edjz: It's not EPAC, it is an Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle; EAPC. Also. you keep stating that non compliant bikes are only illegal on the road. This will confuse some, as they are illegal on all public land, which includes cycleways and other tracks.
@edjz We've added a clarification to that paragraph, thanks.
47 thoughts on ““Motorists don’t pay for roads any more than anybody else”: Council shuts down backlash to 20mph speed limit to “support new cycling route” + more on the live blog”
Road crashes in London have
Road crashes in London have been reduced since the 20mph speed limits were introduced. Journey times are pretty much the same. And I write this from experience too. About half of my 17 mile commute is along roads now with a 20mph speed limit and the trip takes the same time as before. But I do save a bit of fuel and get a few miles more out of a tank on my motorbike. Less acceleration = less fuel = less noise = less air pollution.
The average traffic speed in
The average traffic speed in London is under 20mph (exception during Covid), at rush hour it’s single digit, so reducing the speed limit is only reducing the amount of time people wait at traffic lights.
Good on you James. I work for
Good on you James. I work for a local authority and those responses are part of the usual arsenal. Between you and me and everyone else reading, its actually quite fun.
James for PM! would be good
James for PM! would be good to get someone sensible and knowledgeable for a change…
James reads road.cc.
James reads road.cc.
I’m James and so is my wife!
I’m James and so is my wife!
Paul J wrote:
Is this a Jacobite Rebellion?
mdavidford wrote:
“..Meanwhile, the cyclists
“..Meanwhile, the cyclists get a free ride. Unbelievable.”
Once again, if it’s such an issue for you & you are seething with a (misplaced) sense of injustice, just exercise your own right to ride a bike. Problem solved.
“Unbelievable.”
“Unbelievable.”
And yet yet she believed her own falsehood anyway.
Clem Fandango wrote:
Given my propensity for purchasing unnecessary upgrades, gadgets and additional bicycles this cyclist hasn’t had a free ride for decades.
Whilst no cyclists are
Whilst no cyclists are getting a free ride, motorists can get £3,750 of free government money for buying a car. Unbelievable.
Free money for cars? AND they
Free money for cars? AND they get to park in cycle lanes? FFS “unbelievable”.
Apart from the cycle to work
Apart from the cycle to work scheme…
The 7.4 million cyclists in
The 7.4 million cyclists in the UK contribute to the funding of roads and cycle paths via the local and national taxation system.
“motorists pay for the roads
“motorists pay for the roads AND the bike lanes, only to be rewarded with a 20mph speed limit”
So where is it that I can pay a little money, then disregard the speed limit entirely and drive the M6 like it’s Wangan Midnight?
At least, the commenter seems to be implying that there is some sort of correlation between some sort of fee and how fast one is allowed to drive.
No, the commenter is just
No, the commenter is just thick.
I would say that motorists
I would say that motorists have been rewarded 20mph zones as a result of their inability to comply with 30mph.
Wokingham Borough Council…
Wokingham Borough Council… name says it all…
Good on ’em.
bensynnock wrote:
It’s only truly “woke” if it’s produced in Wokingham, otherwise it’s just plain old being considerate to others.
Own up then – who broke the
Own up then – who broke the bottom off the moon?
It was the Apollo 24 Mission.
It was the Apollo 24 Mission. It was the first attempted in a space SUV.
The mission commander was running late and had to pick up the kids from the Moonbase Academy. He was using his mobile and eating a doughnut while entering orbit. Unfortunately he collided with the moon, breaking a large piece off and flipping the space SUV on its roof.
Where’s Astronauting Mikey
Where’s Astronauting Mikey when we need him??
Bloody asteroid lanes …
Bloody asteroid lanes … they’re a waste of space!
…and don’t get me started
…and don’t get me started on how those asteroids are always appearing out of nowhere, speeding round completely invisible, never any lights on ’em…
Good on you James from
Good on you James from Wokingham. The brass neck required to bombard the Council with negative comments and then complain when someone from the Council picks apart the logical fallacies is military grade.
Absolutely! Top man!
Absolutely! Top man!
Behind the scenes of the BMX
Behind the scenes of the BMX in the ET photo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3z475kxwpo
Well, that’s Road.cc’s “Man
Well, that’s Road.cc’s “Man of the Year 2026” sorted already – step forward, James from Wokingham Council!
I’ll second that proposal.
I’ll second that proposal. All those in favour say Aye ?
About time someone had the guts to stand up to the moaning Myrtle’s and the nagging Nigel’s who keep banging on about “road tax”.
Well done James
James might just be a bot.
James might just be a bot.
Because she probably hates
Because she probably hates “all that woke cycling nonsense”, perhaps we should nominate Kemi Badenoch for a Boris Bike named after her
Well done to James.
Well done to James.
Hopefully, their full ID will remain hidden – even from inside the Council.
I can already see the cries of “dox him” on the motorwanker websites and Wassap boards.*
* I can’t really, but you know some of these people get severely asshurt.
As you’re doing ‘Road CC
As you’re doing ‘Road CC reccommends pieces’ currently, I think you should have a special one for James.
Our local council seems to be
Our local council seems to be suggesting that residents can decide for themselves if they want their street* to be 20mph. I know it’s a cop out but it does make the comments of non residents completely irrelevant.
*only residential streets not trunk roads.
Another cheer for James from
Another cheer for James from me.
And, to pick up on the comment from the road.cc editors… yes, Councils should be encouraged to take a more proactive approach to arguing against the usual untruths the anti-cycling brigade say. There are enough local Councillors and self-interest groups who come out for the newspapers to point at, and moan about, cycle lanes etc, so why not be more proactive in support?
Perhaps road.cc can provide Councils with the 10 handy points of rebuttal, or whatever is needed, to help them?
Thinking about this idea that
Thinking about this idea that motorists pay more towards the upkeep of roads is quite interesting. As previously mentioned all government revenue goes into the Consolidated Fund (CF) and government expenditure comes out of that fund. You’d think that if someone who had a car payed whatever kind of tax was levied then they’d have put more into the CF and therefore as a matter of simple maths they would ultimately have contributed more to the maintenance of roads. Now I don’t 100% know that this is true there maybe all sorts of accounting reasons why not.
However most people , except the very rich, spend , effectively, 100% of their income ; even savings are just deferred spending. So if someone doesn’t have a car ,van ,whatever they are still likely to spend anyway and therefore pay VAT etc into the CF fund. This , at least in my head , means that motorists don’t pay more and if the odd motorist did pay more it’s unlikely to be more when a marginal rate is considered. Now I really do need that smart accountant to step in as I’m out of my depth and drowning.
Fuel has a lot of tax on it.
Fuel has a lot of tax on it. Spend £100 and about 56% goes to the government in tax. Buy most other things and it’s 20%.
Ok, regarding who pays for
Ok, regarding who pays for the roads, let’s use a reverse argument. Let’s suppose there weren’t cars or trucks or vans. There is therefore no VED or fuel duty income. That means there is a hole in the budget to the tune of about £33bn. But, since we don’t have cars or trucks or vans we don’t need roads so that spending in the budget can be eliminated. Hooray! We save £13bn. Or maybe we save £19bn annually between now and 2030 with the government additional £24bn between 2026 and 2030. Irrespective, without vehicle taxes there is a hole in the government finances to the tune of £14bn to £20bn. So we all would need to pay more general tax.
So it’s pretty disingenuous to say that motorists don’t over contribute to the central fund.
That hole is about 1% of
That hole is about 1% of total tax receipts, so it’s not much of an over contribution.
But the larger point is that motorists aren’t paying to use the roads, they’re paying to pollute.
They’re partly paying to
They’re partly paying to pollute. Don’t have the current figures but as i recall the “road taxes” cover the road budget – which is essential repairs plus some new development (is this right?)
Different budgets but those repairs clearly haven’t included “all the potholes” – which TBF have causes in addition to motoring.
Nor does this cover some old infra (large bridges and tunnels) when it reaches end of life.
Nor the “externalities” – medical costs (direct casualties but also effects of brake and tyre particles, road noise), the diseases of inactivity etc.
In an unreal world where we suddenly remove motor traffic we wouldn’t be paying for all of that, plus our infra requirements could be radically smaller.
In the real world (where motoring remains a major thing) in places where they’ve made a bit of a shift (NL most obviously, then parts of Scandinavia) I believe it’s been financially beneficial – albeit mildly since they still have motornormativity and all those motoring industry trillions weighing on the other end of the balance of people’s “choice” of transport.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Disingenuous: disregarding the complete truth in order to make an argument. Let’s take a look at the whole picture: a 2022 study by Dresden Technical University calculated the externalities of motor-vehicle use in terms of cost to the taxpayer, factoring in the cost of crash incidents*, dealing with the health problems caused by pollution**, the time lost to business through congestion and so on (the one thing the study left out was the cost of dealing with the health problems caused by sedentary lifestyles, which are of course huge). It calculated that in the UK the externalities of motor-vehicle use amount to £48 billion per year paid for by the taxpayer. Current VED and fuel tax just about cover the amount spent on roads and other amenities for drivers (not always, it depends on fuel prices) but they don’t cover any of these externalities. If motorists actually contributed the full cost of motoring to the central fund, VED would be somewhere around £1500. There is an over contribution, but it is from tax revenue to the motorist, not vice-versa.
* Just in terms of fatal incidents, every road fatality costs the taxpayer an average of £2.7 million; with around 1750 fatal incidents a year on the roads, that’s nearly £5 billion. Every serious injury incident on the road costs the taxpayer an average of £275,000; with around 28,000 serious injury incidents on the roads each year, that’s another £7.7 billion. Over one third of the total tax contributed by motorists is spent just to cover the cost of the deaths and serious injuries caused by motoring incidents.
**Estimated in some studies to be over £20 billion per year.
To keep it simple, I red
To keep it simple, I red about a decade ago that the BENEFIT to the economy of cycling was 25p per person per mile.
The COST to the economy of driving was 50p per person per mile.
The analysis would have factored in everything, from taxes, road building/wear and tear from motor vehicles, delays due to motor traffic, health benefits etc.
With inflation, the figures would be a bit more now.
It’s ok – he’s wearing a
It’s ok – he’s wearing a plastic hat and hi-vis!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy1q249gpjo
Cycle lane haters never
Cycle lane haters never complain about all the infrastructure pedestrians get. And pedestrians don’t pay ‘road tax’. And they get bucket loads more than cyclists – pavements everywhere, crossings everywhere, footbridges, subways, pedestrian controlled traffic lights (and they always cross on the red man) So if the angry motorist really gave a toss, complain vociferously about pedestrians not paying road tax. But the motorist only goes ballistic when a little bit of cycle lane is proposed.
Almost all pavements and bus
Almost all pavements and bus lanes are empty most of the time.
But no one takes pics of them to argue they should be removed or are a waste of space.
On the Wokingham furore – wow
On the Wokingham furore – wow! how times change! I live in the adjacent cycling heaven (no irony at all, it really is) of Bracknell & not that long ago it was noticeable the number of cycle paths & shared use pavements that stopped abruptly right at the boundary. Weirdly, despite Wokingham’s car monoculture, it had terrible parking. Bracknell, for all the cycling infrastructure (& I can get almost anywhere within the Borough without using roads), always had far better car parking provision.
I don’t suppose the recent switch from Conservative to Liberal control will have had anything to do with it?