It's good but it excludes everywhere without a regional mayor. BCP (Bournemouth Christchurch Poole) got turned down as part of Heart of Wessex in the first devolution tranche. Now we have a two tier system with regional mayors getting all the focus and funding and the rest of us left behind.
July 2, 2025 at 9:10 AM
It's good but it excludes everywhere without a regional mayor. BCP (Bournemouth Christchurch Poole) got turned down as part of Heart of Wessex in the first devolution tranche. Now we have a two tier system with regional mayors getting all the focus and funding and the rest of us left behind.
So your assertion is that a driver running over a pedestrian on an informal zebra crossing may not have committed the offence of, at least, careless driving? Interesting take. Rule H2 of the highway code says pedestrians not only think they have priority, they actually do have priority.
June 14, 2025 at 6:11 AM
So your assertion is that a driver running over a pedestrian on an informal zebra crossing may not have committed the offence of, at least, careless driving? Interesting take. Rule H2 of the highway code says pedestrians not only think they have priority, they actually do have priority.
Another thing that confuses me - why do EVs still have large bonnets? The motors are tiny so surely there are huge design advantages (for pedestrian safety and practicality) to have really short bonnets?
June 13, 2025 at 7:24 AM
Another thing that confuses me - why do EVs still have large bonnets? The motors are tiny so surely there are huge design advantages (for pedestrian safety and practicality) to have really short bonnets?
Fuel duty cut/freeze was the stupidest tax cut ever. Drivers did not appreciate it at first and now think it is a sort of right that it remains frozen every year. Cost the treasury £billions, no real political benefit and now the government is unwilling to reverse at the risk of upsetting motorists.
June 13, 2025 at 7:01 AM
Fuel duty cut/freeze was the stupidest tax cut ever. Drivers did not appreciate it at first and now think it is a sort of right that it remains frozen every year. Cost the treasury £billions, no real political benefit and now the government is unwilling to reverse at the risk of upsetting motorists.
Drivers have an absolute responsibility not to run over pedestrians so I think the law covers it. H2 of the HC already gives pedestrians priority so what is the harm in actually marking that priority?
June 13, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Drivers have an absolute responsibility not to run over pedestrians so I think the law covers it. H2 of the HC already gives pedestrians priority so what is the harm in actually marking that priority?
Fine. We should make all urban roads 20mph then.
June 13, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Fine. We should make all urban roads 20mph then.
Belisha beacons are expensive and pointless. H2 of the HC gives pedestrians priority so why not mark that priority? The best solution is a continuous footway but where that is not possible, "informal" crossings should be used.
June 13, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Belisha beacons are expensive and pointless. H2 of the HC gives pedestrians priority so why not mark that priority? The best solution is a continuous footway but where that is not possible, "informal" crossings should be used.
Local Conservatives in the BCP area talk about nothing else but drivers rights and "war on the motorist". We even have a local motorists (read anti-cyclist) campaign group propped up by Conservatives and Reform activists. The right still thinks there are votes in opposing active travel.
June 9, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Local Conservatives in the BCP area talk about nothing else but drivers rights and "war on the motorist". We even have a local motorists (read anti-cyclist) campaign group propped up by Conservatives and Reform activists. The right still thinks there are votes in opposing active travel.
What Labour do not seem to realise is that they are not stopping "Labour" voters going to Reform, they are creating NEW Reform voters. By moving the whole conversation on immigration right, they move the Ovington window and normalise racism and prejudice.
May 12, 2025 at 9:08 PM
What Labour do not seem to realise is that they are not stopping "Labour" voters going to Reform, they are creating NEW Reform voters. By moving the whole conversation on immigration right, they move the Ovington window and normalise racism and prejudice.
But why life imprisonment? This false equivalence between the risks of cycling and driving is unhelpful. Motorists have been convicted of basically using their vehicle as a weapon and not got life. What could a cyclist possibly do to get life?
May 6, 2025 at 5:27 PM
But why life imprisonment? This false equivalence between the risks of cycling and driving is unhelpful. Motorists have been convicted of basically using their vehicle as a weapon and not got life. What could a cyclist possibly do to get life?
The average custodial sentence for death by dangerous driving is 4 years and 7 months. I can't find a single example of a driver being sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. As cycling is far less dangerous than driving, why would we possibly need this new law?
May 5, 2025 at 3:03 PM
The average custodial sentence for death by dangerous driving is 4 years and 7 months. I can't find a single example of a driver being sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. As cycling is far less dangerous than driving, why would we possibly need this new law?
Or "why are all the parties fighting so hard for the votes of racists and bigots?" Every single person I know who votes reform, is doing it based on racism and prejudice, and this should not be encouraged by Labour. There was a time when extreme views would be shamed and marginalised.
May 4, 2025 at 7:39 AM
Or "why are all the parties fighting so hard for the votes of racists and bigots?" Every single person I know who votes reform, is doing it based on racism and prejudice, and this should not be encouraged by Labour. There was a time when extreme views would be shamed and marginalised.
There was a time when political parties had principals and tried to attract voters. Now they have think-tanks and policy groups trying to chase "what voters want" to the lowest common denominator. Now we have three parties all offering the same anti-EU, anti-migrant, anti-net-zero rhetoric.
May 4, 2025 at 7:12 AM
There was a time when political parties had principals and tried to attract voters. Now they have think-tanks and policy groups trying to chase "what voters want" to the lowest common denominator. Now we have three parties all offering the same anti-EU, anti-migrant, anti-net-zero rhetoric.
It's lovely - looking forward to using it! Please can we have some bigger buffers in future, ideally planted. Bit nervous about kids cycling next to traffic in contraflow.
May 4, 2025 at 7:06 AM
It's lovely - looking forward to using it! Please can we have some bigger buffers in future, ideally planted. Bit nervous about kids cycling next to traffic in contraflow.
Absolutely this. I usually vote LD or Green but lent my vote to Labour to (successfully) unseat the incumbent Conservative. I was hoping for Socially Liberal, Environmentally friendly policy. What I got was Tory-lite. Not voting Labour again under Starmer and this policy platform.
May 2, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Absolutely this. I usually vote LD or Green but lent my vote to Labour to (successfully) unseat the incumbent Conservative. I was hoping for Socially Liberal, Environmentally friendly policy. What I got was Tory-lite. Not voting Labour again under Starmer and this policy platform.
Sure, the devil is in the detail but the broad fact remains that no heat pump owner should see x4 between gas and electricity price. A well installed heat pump should win against a gas boiler every time on running costs. I use an Octopus smart tariff and heating costs are 75% of previous gas boiler.
May 2, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Sure, the devil is in the detail but the broad fact remains that no heat pump owner should see x4 between gas and electricity price. A well installed heat pump should win against a gas boiler every time on running costs. I use an Octopus smart tariff and heating costs are 75% of previous gas boiler.
Two issues. There are specialist tariffs that reduce the "spark gap" significantly. OVO currently charges 15p/kWh for heat pumps making them MUCH cheaper than gas. Second the gas price is volatile and trend is increasing. Once electricity £/kWh decoupled from gas, it will be cheaper and stable.
May 2, 2025 at 8:03 AM
Two issues. There are specialist tariffs that reduce the "spark gap" significantly. OVO currently charges 15p/kWh for heat pumps making them MUCH cheaper than gas. Second the gas price is volatile and trend is increasing. Once electricity £/kWh decoupled from gas, it will be cheaper and stable.
Yet the fossil fuels lobby has seeded public opinion, falsely, that heat pumps don't work, are unreliable or are expensive to buy and run. Even the BBC cancelled a heat pump podcast because it is "controversial". Nobody questions the ability of a fridge to cool food so why a fear a heat pump?
May 2, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Yet the fossil fuels lobby has seeded public opinion, falsely, that heat pumps don't work, are unreliable or are expensive to buy and run. Even the BBC cancelled a heat pump podcast because it is "controversial". Nobody questions the ability of a fridge to cool food so why a fear a heat pump?
The lesson labour should learn, is you can't beat Reform by moving to the right. What they will probably try to do is double down on anti-immigration rhetoric and backtracking on net zero. The ovington window shifts ever rightwards.
May 2, 2025 at 6:33 AM
The lesson labour should learn, is you can't beat Reform by moving to the right. What they will probably try to do is double down on anti-immigration rhetoric and backtracking on net zero. The ovington window shifts ever rightwards.
I support your cause but, sorry, I cannot donate while anti-cycling campaigner John Stewart is still a trustee.
April 25, 2025 at 3:11 PM
I support your cause but, sorry, I cannot donate while anti-cycling campaigner John Stewart is still a trustee.
If it was part of a wider response to a road safety review - e.g mandatory speed limiters for cars, longer bans for dangerous driving and removal of the "exceptional hardship" loophole, I would agree. On its own it has nothing to do with road safety and is just red meat for anti-cycling campaigners.
April 25, 2025 at 3:08 PM
If it was part of a wider response to a road safety review - e.g mandatory speed limiters for cars, longer bans for dangerous driving and removal of the "exceptional hardship" loophole, I would agree. On its own it has nothing to do with road safety and is just red meat for anti-cycling campaigners.
Sure, we can micromanage our way to slightly better terms clause by clause but each small improvement is one more step towards alignment with the EU. What is to be gained by this approach? What value does any divergence from the EU bring? Just cut short this painful process and rejoin.
April 25, 2025 at 11:34 AM
Sure, we can micromanage our way to slightly better terms clause by clause but each small improvement is one more step towards alignment with the EU. What is to be gained by this approach? What value does any divergence from the EU bring? Just cut short this painful process and rejoin.