House of Lords Tripe

McBain_v1
McBain_v1 Posts: 5,237
edited February 2012 in The bottom bracket
Sad git that I am, I get updates on what is being said in the House of Lords and Parliament. The following arrived in my inbox today:
Cycling
Question
Asked by Lord Bradshaw

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Earl Attlee on 7 February, whether any procedures are in place to ensure that the additional funding for the promotion of cycling will be spent in addition to what is currently in local authority plans.[HL15485]

Earl Attlee: The £15 million growth package for cycling and walking announced on 7 February will be provided to Sustrans and the Cycle Rail Working Group (CRWG) to allocate to projects which will promote economic growth and cut carbon. This is in addition to any funding already assigned by local authorities and train operating companies to sustainable transport initiatives.

We have asked Sustrans and CRWG to develop projects which complement existing investment and attract funding from other sources, and we will be taking a final decision on their proposed projects in March.

Cyclists: Penalties
Question
Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Attlee on 9 February (WA 89), whether they will increase the amount of the penalty for cycling on the footway to bring it in line with increases in penalties for other traffic penalties since 2010.[HL15755]

Earl Attlee: The Government announced plans in their Strategic Framework for Road Safety (May 2011) to increase road traffic fixed penalty notices from £60 to between £80-£100 to bring this in line with other penalty notices and avoid the risk of trivialising these offences. We intend to consult on this in the summer. We are considering the scope of offences covered by this, including whether this should cover other moving traffic offences, such as cycling on the footway.

So on the one hand there are people desperate to penalize us further, and on the other there are questions about how we are going to promote cycling more.

Perhaps there should be mandatory tests for senility in the House of Lords?
What do I ride? Now that's an Enigma!

Comments

  • Wirral_paul
    Wirral_paul Posts: 2,476
    McBain_v1 wrote:
    Perhaps there should be mandatory tests for senility in the House of Lords?

    Do we really need a test to tell us they are all senile?? :lol:

    So of £15m being spent on promoting cycling in the UK, nearly half that will be going to the CRWG to... (quoting the DfT directly) " to improve integration between cycle and rail at stations. Measures will include safer and more convenient cycle racks, additional cycle parking and storage, and better access for cyclists. This will complement the £7m that Network Rail is already spending in this area."

    Great - our railway stations are getting bike racks. That'll really help wont it!!
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    Not quite.

    On one hand, you have people trying enquiring about funding procedures cycling.
    On the other hand, you have people enquiring whether the penalties for cycling offences will be brought in line with other traffic offence increases.

    There is no mentin of penalizing you further, unless you do something wrong. If you're cycling with in the law, there's no change.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • estampida
    estampida Posts: 1,008
    The investment is very good, but will be squandered on bike racks in dodgy area's or at unsecured train stations, where there is a sign saying they are not liable for how unsafe the car park is........ but they want you to use it....

    as for the penalties, there is not a copper in the land on those police rock-hoppers that can catch me, I don't cycle on the pavements but its a bit like ghost rider on you-tube, no plates, no chance of tracing or catching me in a built up area :twisted:

    and I bet there are plenty of disqualified or drunk drivers they should be nicking instead.......... the police need clear objectives not a massive list of fines, and which 1's are the cheapest to prove in court, there will be a police directive somewhere detailing the profit and loss on certain detection and prosecution
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    estampida wrote:
    as for the penalties, there is not a copper in the land on those police rock-hoppers that can catch me, I don't cycle on the pavements but its a bit like ghost rider on you-tube, no plates, no chance of tracing or catching me in a built up area :twisted:

    and I bet there are plenty of disqualified or drunk drivers they should be nicking instead.......... the police need clear objectives not a massive list of fines, and which 1's are the cheapest to prove in court, there will be a police directive somewhere detailing the profit and loss on certain detection and prosecution

    This has nothing to do with the police, how they use their resources, their objectives or who they spend their time nicking. It's simply to do with bringing penalties in line with other offences.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    Free, secure bike parking would get my vote. The umnanned platform in town has 4 lockable boxes which are great, but if they are full you have to use the open racks, which even in broad daylight the local scum seem to view as a cycling pick-n-mix.

Categories