Petition [was New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety]

What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
to have some effect.

I speak as someone who used to commute by bicycle and now does by
car, largely as a direct result of the attitude promoted by one of
those changes, and can witness that the discouragement is real.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 13/04/2007 20:36, Nick Maclaren said,
What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
to have some effect.

I speak as someone who used to commute by bicycle and now does by
car, largely as a direct result of the attitude promoted by one of
those changes, and can witness that the discouragement is real.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Go for it! I'll sign.

"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.


eh?

Nick Maclaren wrote:
What would people's reactions be to petitioning the PM to cause the
proposed new Highway Code to be withdrawn on the grounds that it
will endanger cyclists and discourage cycling?

If there were 2,800 responses to its nonsense, how many would we
get for a petition? Not 1,000,000, certainly, but perhaps enough
to have some effect.

There are only 173 signatures to
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

And be warned, the petition website upholds or disregards its own rules
about petitions at its own whim.

Martin.

"Adam Lea" typed



"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.


eh?


The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
rather less...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote on 14/04/2007 00:55 +0100:
"Adam Lea" typed



"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.


eh?


The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
rather less...


But how many of us are car free? The tax they lose from me is that I
don't pay as much petrol duty as I would if I didn't cycle. But OTOH
they are encouraging low petrol consumption anyway through the VED system.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article ,
Martin Dann wrote:
There are only 173 signatures to
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

And about half of them are from Cambridge, I suspect (guessing from the
number of names that look familiar). Which will, of course, be visible
to those collating the data, from the submitted postcodes, and provide
the "perfect" excuse to discount it anyway.

-patrick.

Patrick Gosling wrote:

In article ,
Martin Dann wrote:
There are only 173 signatures to
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/No-cycle-helmets/

And about half of them are from Cambridge, I suspect (guessing
from the
number of names that look familiar). Which will, of course,
be visible to those collating the data, from the submitted
postcodes, and provide the "perfect" excuse to discount it
anyway.

-patrick.

But if the other half are from Oxford, we might be in with a
chance :-)

Anna

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...
"Adam Lea" typed



"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
Knowing this government, those would be the precise reasons for leaving
the proposed new HC as it is. They don't actually want to encourage
cycling - that would mean less income.


eh?


The poor, beleaguered motorist pays lots of tax, a car-free cyclist pays
rather less...


But if we are to believe the figures quoted on this ng, and the figures on
this (Australian) website:

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

then the costs of motoring are greater than the tax take, so reducing
motoring should result in more income.

Of course the hyper-cynical amongst us would claim that if cycling ever
became a significant mode of transport then the government would find a way
to tax it.