Modifying and putting to work Liberal Democrat Cycling Policy

[Riverman]

I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats. Finally we're in government, even if the circumstances (a Conservative coalition) are not exactly ideal. The Liberal Democrats are a very democratic party, much more so than our Tory counterparts.

Liberal Democrat conferences are quite unlike those of other parties. Policies are put forward as motions and voted on by delegates. Thus, it's quite possible for members to change and heavily influence Liberal Democrat policy through the government.

Given that the Liberal Democrats are in government, I believe this gives us an opportunity to change things even in these difficult economic times. I've thought about submitting a motion as outlined in the following link. However, the current policy seems pretty adequate but I think it would benefit from the seasoned knowledge of cyclechat members. I encourage anyone here, whether you're Liberal Democrat members or not to suggest ways in which the following policy can be improved.

I have created a group in LibDem Act outlining this below. Cheers.

http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/lib...group/forum/topics/current-liberal-democrat-1

 

[Spinney]

Given the number of threads on here about the derisory punishments handed out for motorists who kill/injure cyclists, is there any way of the governnment encouraging the judicial system to dish out punishments that really are punishments (e.g. that woman who just ran straight into a time triallist?). This isn't really a matter of new legislation (unless they go as far as the 'motorist is always at fault unless proven otherwise), but of making sure that the system is fair to all road users and does not assume that people have a 'right' to drive.

 

[Bollo]

I hate to p1ss on your LibDem chips, but the new transport secretary thinks the poor motorist has been having it a little hard recently. Add that to the Tory's policies on speed cameras and law enforcement on the roads generally (just type 'Theresa Villiers' into google and see how many links to the ABD and Safespeed you get) , plus their less than enthusiastic support for new rail projects and you'll get the idea what the next five years is going to be like for cyclists. We're pretty much going to be living the Daily Mail dream.

 

[Riverman]

I hate to p1ss on your LibDem chips, but the new transport secretary thinks the poor motorist has been having it a little hard recently. Add that to the Tories policies on speed cameras and law enforcement on the roads generally (just type 'Theresa Villiers' into google and see how many links to the ABD and Safespeed you get) , plus their less than enthusiastic support for new rail projects and you'll get the idea what the next five years is going to be like for cyclists. We're pretty much going to be living the Daily Mail dream.

Let's just say we're in for a fight. Makes it worth it imo.

 

[MartinC]

You're both right to some extent. With the Tories back in government the the "Daily Mail" take on transport policy will be rampant. But there are opposing factors at work. It's a coalition government and the LibDems have avery different set of policies. Motoring is heavily subsidised from public expenditure so it's in for a hard time as well - even if the penny hasn't dropped with the DM yet. Also the country still needs a transport policy that works - basing it on private motoring in the most densely populated country in Europe was never going to work - so there's pigeons waiting to come home to roost here too.

 

[marinyork]

Excellent work Riverman. From my point of view I like two of the bits below quite a lot.

#New office blocks and other places of employment, to have proper facilities for cycling (including cycle parking and proper changing facilities)

I like this, but would words make a difference? A lot of the time it's down to local planning officers and they don't tend to scrutinise things quite as closely as they might. You end up with half of new developments having pretty all right new facilities and the other half nothing/crap. It's not even the same designers/companies doing it, they'll put in good facilities in one place and then a few years later bog all in a building a quarter of a mile down the road.

Requiring train and coach operators to accommodate bicycles on all new vehicles, and improve cycle storage and parking at stations and bus stops.

Accomodating bicycles on new things is a bit of a sore point round here, so I think it's good that it's being taken up. Cycle parking is actually improving in this region right now at railway stations, but it's not enough. I think They have/are putting in better parking at ten railway stations (excluding the terminus). What you say about bus stops is quite interesting as the PTE round here has supposedly a policy of putting them in at transport interchanges (with variable implementation) and has flirted with the idea of doing so at stops.

 

[StuartG]

Lib Dems keen on cycling?

That's a bit of a surprise as the letter I received from Nick Clegg on the eve of the election mentioned it not. Instead it centred on relieving the cost of fuel for motoring!

No mention of where the tax burden was being moved too - how to handle the increased congestion or what it does for the green/co2 agenda. I'm really sorry for LibDem activists who share a more sustainable transport policy - but this guy is something different and will he take notice of LibDem conference decisions?

Remind us of his track record ...

 

[Riverman]

Lib Dems keen on cycling?

That's a bit of a surprise as the letter I received from Nick Clegg on the eve of the election mentioned it not. Instead it centred on relieving the cost of fuel for motoring!

No mention of where the tax burden was being moved too - how to handle the increased congestion or what it does for the green/co2 agenda. I'm really sorry for LibDem activists who share a more sustainable transport policy - but this guy is something different and will he take notice of LibDem conference decisions?

Remind us of his track record ...

There was very little in the manifesto that is true but this doesn't mean it can't be Liberal Democrat policy. The manifesto pledges would have been directed at areas the polls indicated were most important.

 

[StuartG]

There was very little in the manifesto that is true but this doesn't mean it can't be Liberal Democrat policy. The manifesto pledges would have been directed at areas the polls indicated were most important.

From the manifesto:

We will introduce a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas

Buy in Wales, use in London? Is that sustainable? Will it not make public transport in rural areas even more unattractive than at present and the roads even more dangerous and polluting? Who pays?

I really hope the Lib Dem conference will reconsider and reverse this in the hope of restraining the Conservative pro-car aspirations. That may be more important than specific pro-cycle provision.

Nick & Dave riding a tandem might be a nice political and environmental photoshot!

 

[chap]

I hate to p1ss on your LibDem chips, but the new transport secretary thinks the poor motorist has been having it a little hard recently. Add that to the Tories policies on speed cameras and law enforcement on the roads generally (just type 'Theresa Villiers' into google and see how many links to the ABD and Safespeed you get) , plus their less than enthusiastic support for new rail projects and you'll get the idea what the next five years is going to be like for cyclists. We're pretty much going to be living the Daily Mail dream.

Living the Daily Mail dream? What, bringing about American style lynchings on dark-skinned (suspected) immigrants, keeping the Slavs on a leash, and running over cyclists?

We all crave a little drama, and dystopian threats, that's why Nostradamus is still going strong, conspiracy theories survive (well that and our need for certainty), and why the DaVinci code was a best-seller. Calm down, they are just another party, we are a developed nation and you can see that from how the coalition members are treating matters. Were this some backwards country then you'd have George Galloway style fist pumping, banal rhetoric, and basically the politics from our East-European and Mediterranean (esp. Italian) 'cousins.'

I think the OP has a great idea, and will like to get involved. Optimism is not particularly 'cool', but little has been done under dread and chic cynicism*.



*A tad spurious as the same applies to Optimism, since intelligent action brings results.

 

[snorri]

Will it not make public transport in rural areas even more unattractive than at present and the roads even more dangerous and polluting? Who pays?

My interpretation of this policy. Petrol is cheaper in heavily populated areas than in the isolated areas and islands, then along comes the taxman who places his percentage of tax on each litre. This results in the more heavily populated areas paying less tax per litre than the isolated areas. I have to say I think that is unfair, and it is this unfairness that the Libs want to iron out (I think). I would hope this levelling of tax would only take place in a few isolated places on the mainland and on some islands. Public transport is non existent or minimal in these places, and people on islands don't do massive mileages anyway.
I cant believe I am putting up an argument for cheaper petrol for anyone

 

[StuartG]

My interpretation of this policy. Petrol is cheaper in heavily populated areas than in the isolated areas and islands:

Possibly on islands - but that is small beer. The duty reduction was being pushed as the major issue in Wales and in the particular constituency the letter was sent - the price at Tescos or Morrisons is normally within a penny or two of Sainsburys here in London.

I can fill up in either place ... encouraging me to drive rather than use bus or rail. I use the connecting bus rather than bike because rural roads feel much more dangerous with speeding 4x4s. We should be taxing these gas guzzlers to the hilt - not subsidising them!

 

[jonesy]

Fuel subsidies are regressive: they give greatest benefit to the most well-off, those who drive the most and those who have the biggest, most gas guzzling cars. Rural areas already have too much traffic generated by people who live there for the lifestyle but have long drives to work*, subsidising this is bonkers.

Edit- * not to mention the distorting effect this has on house prices.

 

[chap]

My interpretation of this policy. Petrol is cheaper in heavily populated areas than in the isolated areas and islands, then along comes the taxman who places his percentage of tax on each litre. This results in the more heavily populated areas paying less tax per litre than the isolated areas. I have to say I think that is unfair, and it is this unfairness that the Libs want to iron out (I think). I would hope this levelling of tax would only take place in a few isolated places on the mainland and on some islands. Public transport is non existent or minimal in these places, and people on islands don't do massive mileages anyway.
I cant believe I am putting up an argument for cheaper petrol for anyone

The more densely populated areas tend to have more congestion issues, in the sparsely populated areas(excluding the ruggedly remote with dirt roads) one can travel at a reasonable 'green' speed along the many roads which scar our landscape. In London, and many cities, you basically pay to wait if you're in a car during rush hour, and most people travel at rush hour.

Don't get me started on the M25, the M1, and the M6.

I am in favour of increasing the price of petrol further, through a green tax, which can be invested in reclaiming and improving public transport and introducing cycle lanes through precarious parts within town and city centres, and finally in introducing adequate cycle parking facilities - London could do with more than 2 public secure cycle parks.

 

[buggi]

haven't got time to read it, will do later, but my first thoughts:

1. get rid of cycle lanes as they are just a nuisance for cyclists and make cycling more dangerous.
2. spend the money you would have spent on cycle lanes on fixing potholes.
3. spend the money on smooth tarmac and get rid of that gravel shite.