UKIP Policies on cycling...

cookeeemonster

...stolen from the road.cc forum.

Well you all could guess anyway couldn't you? http://road.cc/content/forum/77338-ukip-policies-bikes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic

Basically a bunch of bitter old people and ex BNPer's with nothing better to do than moan about everything and anyone thats different to them.

veronese68

I read the thread title and groaned to myself. How depressing.

supersonic

I actually agree with it. (on the whole)

pangolin

What about 10.9?

poweredbyidris

What 'unacceptable delays' are caused by cyclists riding a bike?

pangolin

Any delay caused by a bike is unacceptable, don't you even know that yet? Goodness.

Especially delays that stop you getting to the next queue promptly.

vermin

Must admit I can see merit in 10.1, 10.6 and 10.7, but then, I don't buy into the 'encourage eveyone to cycle at any cost' attitude of some here. 10.9, on the other hand, is stupid.

Interesting to see what has been left out in the cherry-picking of clauses; 10.2 - 10.5 makes a case for greater police action in tackling cycle thefts, which is a laudable sentiment at least:

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for
pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a
lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.3 There is also substantial amounts of bicycle theft, as David Cameron can testify to
personally. The British Crime Survey records c.440,000 bikes are stolen every year, but
many thefts go unreported. Halifax Home Insurance estimates a bike is stolen every 65
seconds in the UK.

10.4 According to CTC, the national cyclists’ association: “The police make almost no
effort to catch bike thieves… What’s more, the few who are caught face derisory
sentences” and this is reflected in a clear-up rate of around 5%.

10.5 UKIP’s proposed new elected police boards could also put greater emphasis on
tackling bicycle theft, particularly in theft hotspots such as London, Reading, Bristol and
Oxford.

10.8 Seems to be trying to address, in one way or another, the problem of dangerous cycle lanes, as demonstrated by Mr Boardman (it at least acknowledges that the status quo is lacking);

10.8 Cycling on safe cycle routes, lanes, tracks and trails should be actively encouraged,
particularly as a leisure pursuit. UKIP believes off road dedicated lanes are preferable to
a confusing maze of cycle lanes on unsuitable or dangerous roads, which is problematic
for cyclists as well as other road users.

Drfabulous0

I have real concerns about the popularity of these pillocks. They have no proper policies, are not a real political party and if they were to ever achieve power the country would be a far greater shambles than it already is. Yet they seem to have ever growing support from the idiot population.

vermin

Drfabulous0 wrote:

I have real concerns about the popularity of these pillocks. They have no proper policies, are not a real political party and if they were to ever achieve power the country would be a far greater shambles than it already is. Yet they seem to have ever growing support from the idiot population.

They don't have any support. The turnout was shoot. A section of the electorate wanted to register a protest vote. In the middle of an awful economic period for the encumbant government, the opposition vote (Labour) stalled completely, indicating that the electorate thought them even worse than the incumbant. the best place to register a protest was with the next highest profile party; the one that would make headlines if it attracted a big enough vote. What I find most interesting is the complete failure on the part of the press, notably the BBC, to register the scale of disaster this was for Labour.

poweredbyidris

Doesn't really make a case for greater police action though. Just acknowledges that there's an issue, along with a wishy-washy promise to put 'greater emphasis' on it without being specific as to how

Which is no different from any of the main parties too

pangolin

vermin wrote:

They don't have any support. The turnout was shoot. A section of the electorate wanted to register a protest vote. In the middle of an awful economic period for the encumbant government, the opposition vote (Labour) stalled completely, indicating that the electorate thought them even worse than the incumbant. the best place to register a protest was with the next highest profile party; the one that would make headlines if it attracted a big enough vote. What I find most interesting is the complete failure on the part of the press, notably the BBC, to register the scale of disaster this was for Labour.

As an expert on scales, I agree with this post.

Ian.B

vermin wrote:

UKIP wrote:

10.3 There is also substantial amounts of bicycle theft, as David Cameron can testify to
personally.

I thought they were the sort of people who would at least be a bit particular about their grammar

pdw

vermin wrote:

Must admit I can see merit in [...] 10.6

Would you also support mandatory third party insurance for pedestrians?

The notion that car drivers are "not protected" from cyclists is a fallucy. If a cyclist causes damage to your car, they are liable for the damage. Whether they can afford it, or have insurance to help cover that cost, is a separate issue.

Of course, many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance. Cycling, like walking, poses such low risk to third parties that it is covered by default in most household insurance policies.

vermin

pdw wrote:

many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance.

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling, how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

I for one would happily pay a few pounds a year for something that would prove, unconditionally, to everyone, that I had equal rights to use the road. Would put an immediate end to all those idiotic 'you don't pay road tax' comments and entitled behaviour.

cookeeemonster

vermin wrote:

pdw wrote:

many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance.

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling, how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

I for one would happily pay a few pounds a year for something that would prove, unconditionally, to everyone, that I had equal rights to use the road. Would put an immediate end to all those idiotic 'you don't pay road tax' comments and entitled behaviour.

anyone thats a member of any of the major cycling organisations (British Cycling, CTC, LCC etc) will have 3rd party insurance, as would anyone taking out a specific insurance policy for their bicycle (unless they opted out).

So a reasonable percentage of cyclists have 3rd party insurance even though its not legally required...whereas 10/20%+ of car drivers don't have insurance even though its a legal requirement...

mroli

Vermin - surely you could put a British Cycling membership sticker on your bike....

vermin

CookeeeMonster wrote:

anyone thats a member of any of the major cycling organisations (British Cycling, CTC, LCC etc) will have 3rd party insurance, as would anyone taking out a specific insurance policy for their bicycle (unless they opted out).

So a reasonable percentage of cyclists have 3rd party insurance even though its not legally required...

Yep, I imagine that probably accounts for at least 1, maybe 2% of cyclists.

CookeeeMonster wrote:

whereas 10/20%+ of car drivers don't have insurance even though its a legal requirement...

Ah ha, the old, 'some people are bad so I'm not going to bother trying' gambit. Doesn't wash with me.

@mroli, I could, and it would undoubtedly look lovely, but it wouldn't act as a bona fide signal to every numbskull on the road that I have the right to be there.

pangolin

CookeeeMonster wrote:

vermin wrote:

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling, how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

I for one would happily pay a few pounds a year for something that would prove, unconditionally, to everyone, that I had equal rights to use the road. Would put an immediate end to all those idiotic 'you don't pay road tax' comments and entitled behaviour.

anyone thats a member of any of the major cycling organisations (British Cycling, CTC, LCC etc) will have 3rd party insurance, as would anyone taking out a specific insurance policy for their bicycle (unless they opted out).

So a reasonable percentage of cyclists have 3rd party insurance even though its not legally required...whereas 10/20%+ of car drivers don't have insurance even though its a legal requirement...

I would be very surprised if that reasonable percentage was most cyclists. And that 10/20% sounds fairly made up too. Even if that was correct though, what's the point?

We can cycle around happily knowing we have 3rd party insurance, knowing road tax isn't a thing, knowing we don't cause conjestion. None of that forces a bad driver to agree with us and suddenly not drive dangerously.

Neither would a british cycling sticker.

It's like knowing you are in the right in an accident that kills you. Maybe you were, but it doesn't do you much good.

jamesco

If there was some quo from drivers for this quid from cyclists, I could see some logic, but otherwise it's just nonsensical. Typical angry-party stuff, populist and reactionary and never thought through.

Hopefully these idiots will never get power, but if Italy is any example then the chance of it is real

Widgey

Miniority and majority thing. Many idiot cyclists out there who spoil it for everyone else.

rick_chasey

Is this part of a wider manifesto on transport? Or do they only write about bicycles?

vermin

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is this part of a wider manifesto on transport? Or do they only write about bicycles?

http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

(just realised that some of my posts here might give the impression that I, in some way, support UKIP. I may be vermin, but even vermin have limits...)

jejv

You're taking it far too seriously.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 2112750746

greg66_tri_v2.0

UKIP: a bunch of single issue idiots that appeal to a bigger bunch of bigger idiots.

I have more chance of becoming Queen of England than they do of wielding real power in this country, let alone running it.

File their outpourings under S. For Shit.

davmaggs

A bit naughty just posting bits of their list, no doubt any party's policy looks disagreeable if you grab selected bits of it.

Best thing to kill the insurance debate is to say that the EU is going to mandate it or try logic e.g the reason the insurance is so cheap is because it doesn't really get claimed on so its free money for those selling it.

Like them or not, what UKIP are good at doing is actually listening and responding to the public. The main parties don't really bother with the public now in any genuine sense, and in this particular case it means that your average punter who is sick of morons on bikes misbehaving sees something in writing that they agree with.

Bang on all you like about uninsured drivers etc, but the average person won't be affected by them on a day to day basis so they won't really worry about them. Bikes however are very visible and do stupid things in town centres daily, whilst the decent riders blend in.

edit: typo

MrSweary

I think the phrase ‘swivel-eyed loonies’ applies here..

bigmat

davmaggs wrote:

A bit naughty just posting bits of their list, no doubt any party's policy looks disagreeable if you grab selected bits of it.

Best thing to kill the insurance debate is to say that the EU is going to mandate it or try logic e.g the reason the insurance is so cheap is because it doesn't really get claimed on so its free money for those selling it.

Like them or not, what UKIP are good at doing is actually listening and responding to the public. The main parties don't really bother with the public now in any genuine sense, and in this particular case it means that your average punter who is sick of morons on bikes misbehaving sees something in writing that they agree with.

Bang on all you like about uninsured drivers etc, but the average person won't be affected by them on a day to day basis so they won't really worry about them. Bikes however are very visible and do stupid things in town centres daily, whilst the decent riders blend in.

edit: typo

Do you honestly believe that "the average person" is more affected by cyclists jumping red lights than uninsured drivers? I'd say the chance of either causing you a problem is pretty low, the difference being that the driver might kill you, the cyclist might make you go tut tut.

cookeeemonster

davmaggs wrote:

Bang on all you like about uninsured drivers etc, but the average person won't be affected by them on a day to day basis so they won't really worry about them. Bikes however are very visible and do stupid things in town centres daily, whilst the decent riders blend in.
edit: typo

I spent a week in hospital and 3 months in outpatients because of an uninsured driver...no cyclists have come close to causing me that sort of damage (well ok one RLJ w*nker)

in certain parts of london (and london as a whole) the uninsured percentage is pretty damn high, which is one of the reasons why there are so many hit and runs I wouldve thought.

As to the mandatory insurance for cyclists stuff, I dont agree it'll do anything but prevent 99.9% from getting a bicycle, it'll be too much hassle for most people and is just a way to drive people off the roads (same with helmet and reg number debate) (from someone who got BC membership just to get the 3rd party insurance).

spadve71

Guy Fawkes had the right idea :roll:

pete_s

It shouldn't be surprising. Using bikes for utilitarian purposes is a very continental practice which is automatically opposed by UKIP, despite the benefits that it could have for society if it was implemented at any serious level within transport policy.

pdw

vermin wrote:

pdw wrote:

many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance.

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling,

I have never seen a contents insurance policy that does not cover it. According to this site:

http://www.poverty.org.uk/74/index.shtml

the vast majority of the population are covered by a home contents policy. Where is your "tiny proportion" data coming from?

how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

Would compulsory insurance help that problem? Either the cyclist is honest, admits fault, and gives their details, or they don't. And for what it's worth, the only person I know who's been in this situation did do the honest thing, although I think they concluded that the excess on their policy meant it wasn't worth a claim.

I for one would happily pay a few pounds a year for something that would prove, unconditionally, to everyone, that I had equal rights to use the road. Would put an immediate end to all those idiotic 'you don't pay road tax' comments and entitled behaviour.

You reckon? You'd just be quantifying how much more right to use the road they had. "I pay £300 to use this road and you only pay £10".