Liberal Democrat Cycling Policy Group

Add a Comment

Comment by Mark Edwards on August 18, 2010 at 18:29

History has shown that increasing fuel costs, including escalating levels of duty that have resulted in increases beyond inflation, have done nothing to inhibit the rise in the number of motor vehicles on British roads. The possibility of fuel duty hikes as a viable means of reducing traffic levels is, I think, erroneous.

It is interesting, however, that whilst universal motoring costs such as fuel costs, and road tax fail in this regard, congestion charges show marked success. Clearly, there is an extent to which some fiscal measures have an impact on human cognition whereas others do not. I think this line of thought is worth pursuing.

I agree with much of what has been said, in terms of aspirations for future policy. In particular, it does seem clear to me that natural justice supports the notion that the burden of responsibility should be placed on the least vulnerable road users and as such I think this should be a firm objective.

More generally, the fear that surrounded the emergence of the motor car onto the roads of Britain such that in those early days the driver was preceded on foot by a red flag, has now, through a long process of mission-creep, diminished, despite the phenomenal increase in size, speed and numbers.

The idea of re-testing is realistic but I have long held the view that the only real solutions are radical ones (if not very realistic) so I would go much further than re-testing. I strongly favour the elevation of driving skills and the possession of a driving license to that of a private pilots license. In so doing, the externalities of motor vehicle usage (death and injury; costs to health and emergency services; environmental damage; and much more) would be massively reduced. If someone really wants or needs to be a pilot, and they can reach the skill-levels required then it is perfectly possible to become one, and if you can afford it or your job demands or provides for it then you can own or fly a plane. In the context of the motor car this may not be a socially inclusive solution but then neither is a dangerous and damaged environment that we all subsidise to perpetuate.

Unfortunately and pragmatically, public transport alternatives (truly socially inclusive options) will never succeed while ever private car ownership remains so accessible that it dominates the transport agenda.

Comment by Paul Bright on August 10, 2010 at 13:47

There is a huge scope to improve cycling policy in the UK and this would
make the UK a more family and business friendly place. Companies will
save on the cost of providing company cars once cycling is mainstream.
I look to Holland, Denmark and Germany. There must be a completely
traffic free cycle network and cyclists need priority on the roads.
Already in London things are improving, but have a long way to go.
For longer distances it needs to be easy to get on a train with a bike.
In Holland bike tickets are needed, but rail fares are much, much cheaper.
So as well as the cycle routes we need much lower rail fares.
I work to make the UK family, cyclist and business friendly because
I am worried that we are losing competitiveness with car dependency.
With very best wishes for all cyclists,
www.brightconnections.fr.gd

Comment by Andy Brooke on May 14, 2010 at 16:54

Hi Adam, I've just joined ACT and thought I'd look around for some interesting groups. I'm a keen cyclist / triathlete and was thinking about this on the way home from work. Any thoughts on improving current policy? Andy