- 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
- ktache 2 hours 45 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...
- Zazz53 3 hours 16 min ago
TBF there are plenty of mountain, gravel, Lime bikes and e-bikes using the Tamsin Trail. Have never seen a collision but have thought a number of...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 50 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 6 hours 53 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 7 hours 7 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 7 hours 40 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...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 32 min ago
Awaiting the next feckless driver asking the judge to delay the start of the sentence because "they owe a few more cyclists a proper goodbye"....
- Hirsute 9 hours 50 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 11 hours 4 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
Dog whistle nonsense that any competent Chancellor would know is an unrealistic and unaffordable direction. Such craven support for commercial interests of big Oil and big Automotive show desperate political opportunism and bad judgement that should prevent any serious position of power in future. Fail..
So while Labour continues to tear itself apart and had made bad choices for party leader, the conservatives will continue to make hay. "It's us or the Tories", the hard left seem to say. Labour have, for all our sakes, to recover from their failure to put David Miliband in as leader and the present leader needs to be be able to fend off the ruthless attentions and slurs of the right-wing press: "rats", anyone?
And so it goes with the so-called War on Cars - a massive falsehood, believed by the bigoted, the mean and the lazy, promoted by chancers and sustained by the MSM.
No comments on this item below , so I'll have to it do it here. The real crisis hasn't even started yet, but here we are; two labradors, bit of a luxury dontchathink, perhaps a car or two, what is the 18 yo mentioned doing to contribute? If you voted Brexit, (and then ratified that choice in Dec '19) then here is the spite on ordinary people that you voted for turned real.
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/20680412.amesbury-mother-sets-go...
I'm becoming more convinced that Keith was planted by the Tories to destroy Labour.
I think the Tories would have tried to keep Corbyn if that was their tactic, don't you?
Except that Corbyn would have ushered in socialist policies, had they won, whereas Keith won't rock the boat any further left than the centre.
Also, Keith was part of the factionalism within Labour which certainly hurt their chances. Have a look at the Forde report: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/19/key-takeaways-forde-report-labour-factionalism
I don't think Labour has been fit for purpose for quite a while now.
What Corbyn might or might not have done is rather irrelevant when he led Labour to their worst election defeat in a generation. I'm not particularly a Starmer fan (though I find the whole 'Keith' thing incredibly childish and tiresome) but if you asked the Conservatives who they would rather be up against out of Starmer or Corbyn, there's no doubt what their answer would be. There's a reason why Johnson consistently tried to link Starmer to Corbyn. And the centre would be a great improvement on where we are and where we are heading.
That's what makes it funny
Which party has (assuming that the purpose is to govern the UK well)?
I'd settle for not killing off people in the search for more profits for the wealthy, so Green is my current choice. I'd quite like SNP to extend their reach and take over England/Wales, but they'd have to change their name.
I'm not sure that the unintended consequences of the green's policies wouldn't kill off nearly as many.
The SNP are a one issue party and any appearance of competence is purely as a lack of action leaving civil servants to do a decent job, where they have enacted policies they have usually made things worse.
Better than the intended consequences of capitalism to destroy the planet as quickly as possible to generate big profits.
Bear in mind that many Conservative supporters actually boasted of paying their £3 to support Corbyn's leadership bid.
It was pretty clear from the start he was going to be an absolute disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/jeremy-corbyn-labour-le...
He was a disaster for the Labour Party in that he could not get them elected to power.
Those that did get into power are a problem for far more of us.
It's surprising how unpopular he was at the time - polling much lower than Boris. I think the biggest mistake was trying to sit on the fence about Brexit to avoid losing Leave/Remain voters and thus losing both sets. Of course, the Labour party was/is deeply disfunctional with fighting factions that did not do anyone any favours (except for the Tories).
(For the record, I voted Green at that election, although Bristol is so firmly Labour that it made no real difference)
I think the reason he did relatively well against May was because he sat on that fence. He attracted some Brexit voting Labour supporters whilst Brexit supporting Conservatives were less enthused. Had he gone hard Remain he'd have lost the support of the former whilst galvanising the latter
Once the Conservatives had a leader who people believed was pro-Brexit it made no sense for Corbyn to continue his ambiguity.
Strangely I think Corbyn probably was pro-Brexit and could have trounced May had he put Labour behind Brexit and touted the opportunities it presented for socialist policies.
I'm pretty sure that Corbyn was anti-EU for a long time, but I don't get why EU membership would prevent socialist policies. There's been some unsuccessful attempts at Universal Basic Income in member states and you can hardly get more socialist than that.
The EU has pretty stringent regulations on state aid for industry.
Outside the EU Corbyn could have taken us back to the glory days of British Leyland should he have so desired.
Most EU countries have railways, water and electricity in state ownership.
In fact the European State owned businesses often own our providers so that the profits subsidise their service provision.
However with railways, the direction of travel (sorry) is going the other way. Successive EU rail directives are moving towards forcing network and rolling stock owners to allow service provision on their tracks. It appears to be based on our own Railways Act 1993, and that's going splendidly. The Fourth Railway Package implemented in 2019 is shifting the networks under a single pan-European body (European Railway Agency) so that any rail company can bid and win tenders for services. This wouldn't sit well with Jeremy Corbyn's plans for renationalisation, which frankly, doesn't exactly sound like a bad idea right now.
I actually think the EU have it about right on the railways.
Competition is what's needed and where it has been implemented so far it has created extra demand.
The UK privatised the railways terribly, creating private monopolies instead of public ones, the end result was the same.
Alternatively, as at present, the losses are being paid for by EU taxpayers.
Maybe sometimes.
Rail companies hand back the contract if the can't make money to avoid losses.
Price cap on gas electricity has been created primarily to stop providers going out of business.
EDF nuclear deal will cerrtainly make money for the French tax payer.
The state owned companies obviously belive they will make money out of investing in the UK or they won't do it. It is not without risk, what is, but the state owned companies obviously believe they will earn a return.
The price cap has driven almost all the energy supply companies (eg bulb) out of business.
There are hardly any left, those that remain have swallowed enormous losses so far. EDF being one of them.
EDF may never even make a return on Hinckley. The cost they can charge for electricity is capped so there's no scope for windfall profits when prices are high. The costs of building the thing are spiralling daily.
Our costs for building Hinckley are rising.
EDF has a guaranteed price that keeps it whole.
I believe its construction is fully financed by EDF and a Chinese company whose name escapes me.
Rich, you are correct.
I didn't express my point very well. The UK Government signed up to a very expensive 35 year price to buy Hinkley's electricity. A high and index linked price that is much higher than say offshore wind or other renewables. This covers a fair amount of risk that the investors are exposed to.
Only time will tell whether it is a good deal, the change in the gas market and the future 'price' of carbon make these estimates difficult.
One thing we do know, the payments won't come out of general taxation, but out of a levy on electricity users. Now that is likely to be the same people, but I would reckon a much less progressive way to fund.
It sounds like bad times for them, but some of the "privations" just sound like "my childhood" - and even as a surly teenager I appreciated we were far from being at the bottom of the heap.
I suspect - but could be very wrong - most people here are in a more comfortable or at least stable financial position than these folks. So a degree of understanding is in order. Looks like they're on low wage jobs and renting. Never mind the dogs, four kids - that's going to be a big expense. The article suggests it's a composite family. However children - and adding to existing ones - is a choice. Again the men here in the comments should be aware the woman - even in the UK - might not have felt as free about choices here as the chap.
Isn't the issue as always that "rich" is a relative term? Doesn't matter where we are in absolute terms, it's all about local comparisons. How we compare to previous years, or to our relatives, our role models, friends and competitors. For example:
...you think of the Micawber Principle:
In this case it's only terrible because at some previous time presumably they had spare pennies, and that's most people's expectation. And maybe they see others who appear to have plenty.
Two labradors and four kids, no money at end of month? Take them back to the shop for a refund. You can't? Well, try your local orphanages.
We all make life choices that will be with us for years - mortgages, kids, pets - based on our expectation of the future. It's arguable that comparison culture* has encouraged many people to sail closer to the financial wind than in times past, and the events of the past few years have exposed their lack of contingency.
The modern political thought that brings benefit caps, bedroom taxes etc is that everyone can cut their cloth. Which is fair enough for psychics or those making their decisions now, but difficult when you already have committments - the cloth is stretched as far as it will go.
What really grinds my gears is the idea that cutting income and corporation tax will help the poorest people and ward off the stagflation we are faced with. Part of the "economists are all wrong (except P. Minford) but Liz is right" offshoot of the "we don't need experts" fallacy.
If you want growth, in my amateur opinion the best thing to do is boost the income of the poorest. They will spend it on the essentials of living rather than trophy assets that are seldom used (eg holiday homes and diamonds). And one of the ways to do this is to sort out the cost of housing, which is insane in this country because we are all terrified of a house price crash as we have invested so much into our homes.
Grr.
Interesting rant; was there a point to it?
I've never feared for the future as much as I do for winter 2022/23. And beyond, for that matter as I don't yet see any solutions, e.g. to energy prices having into view. A new doom prediction every week on the energy cap.
We're at the "hate others sufficiently to wish and even enact hardship on them, even a cost to our own selves" stage. A year ago, the petrol pumps were wobbling - a few drivers were losing the plot over it - a guilty pleasure?
Labour need to decide if they want to be a serious political party aiming to win national office. If they just want to be a local/progressive fringe group, they should leave the national political field. I hope they choose the first one, and succeed at it.
Pages